HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - Water and Wastewater Multi-Hazard Mitigation PlanCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No.. 3
November 14, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Utilities Department
Pete Antista, Utilities Director (949) 718 -3400
pantistaacity. newport- beach.ca.us
George Murdoch, Utilities operations Manager (949) 718 -3401
g m u rd oc h Cep city. n ewp o rt-beach . ca . u s
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE ORANGE
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER MULTI -
HAZARD MITIGATION (HAZMIT) PLAN
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2006- for the adoption of the Orange County
Regional Water and .Wastewater Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan, subject to
incorporation of comments, if any, by the State Office of Emergency Services
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
DISCUSSION:
A Hazard Mitigation Plan is a pre- disaster strategic plan written to guide how a
community will lower its risk and exposure to disasters. Jurisdictions, like the
City of Newport Beach and 19 other agencies participating in the Orange County
Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan, are dedicated to ensuring service to their
customers and to safeguarding those services when disaster strikes.
An approved Hazard Mitigation Plan helps meet that goal. In addition,
participating jurisdictions become eligible to receive Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) grants, which ease the financial impacts of
emergency preparedness planning and the response measures developed
before and after natural and manmade disasters.
Utilities Department staff has been working with: Municipal Water District of
Orange County (MWDOC) and Water Emergency Response Organization of
Orange County (WEROC) staff, URS Corporation (paid. consultant), and 17 other
Water and wastewater agencies in the County to complete the Orange County
Adoption of the Orange County Regional Water &
Wastewater Multi- Hazard Mitigation (Hazmit) Plan
November 14, 2006
Page 2
Regional Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan. The participants
in the plan include:
Participating Water and Wastewater Agencies
• Municipal Water District of Orange County
• Orange County Water District
• Orange County Sanitation District .
• South Orange County Wastewater Authority
• City of Buena Park
• El Toro Water District
• City of Garden Grove
• Laguna Beach County Water District
• City of La Habra
• Mesa Consolidated Water District
• Moulton Niguel Water District
• City of Newport Beach
• City of Orange
• Santa Margarita Water District
• Serrano Water District
• South Coast Water District
• Trabuco Canyon Water District
• City of Tustin
• City of Westminster
• Yorba Linda Water District
Beginning in 2004, FEMA started restricting grant applications for pre- and post -
disaster hazard mitigation funds for any agencies not covered by an approved
Hazard Mitigation Plan. These FEMA funds are available for the purpose of
mitigating damage to public facilities due to a natural disaster — fire, flood,
earthquakes, landslides, etc. The plans are extensive documents that require a
significant amount of staff and /or consultant time to prepare. The benefits of
completing a plan include:
Qualifies agencies to submit for Hazard Mitigation Implementation Grants.
FEMA allocates funding every year for these types of grants.
During disaster recovery efforts, Hazard Mitigation elements can be added
into the recovery work and can be submitted for funding by FEMA. Without
the plan, disaster recovery is limited to what was already there.
Going through the process of reviewing the water and wastewater system
operations and impacts from natural hazards is good business and allows
Adoption of the Orange County Regional Water &
Wastewater Multi- Hazard Mitigation ( Hazmd) Plan
November 14, 2006
Page 3
an agency to anticipate what might happen in the future to be better
prepared.
What is involved in the Hazard Mitigation Planning Process?
As noted in the figure below, the basic steps in the process are to assess the
risks and the risk profile within the community to the water and wastewater
facilities in Orange County and develop plans to mitigate those risks. The
culmination of the process is a list of goals, objectives and actions that can be
carried out to reduce the risk of water or wastewater systems being out of
service.
The final list of hazards profiled for Orange County included:
- Tsunamis
- Floods /Coastal Storms
- Contamination
-High Winds /Santa Ana Winds (power outages)
-Dam Failure
- Landslide/Mudslide
- Drought/Extreme Heat
-Land Subsidence
- Earthquake
- TornadoM/ater Spout
- Liquefaction
- Wildfire/tlrban Fire
- Expansive Soils
-Human caused hazards
The biggest threat in California and Orange County is due to the occurrence of
earthquakes, of which there are five major faults within Orange County.
Mitigation against all service issues from earthquake damage is not possible. At
all public meetings, the need for the public to be self sufficient for the first 3 to 5
days following a major earthquake until the local and regional utilities can get
their systems back at partial or full operating capacity is crucial.
Part of the Plan Preparation Process required by FEMA is to hold public
meetings to receive input into the process before the final plan is prepared.
Three meetings were recently held to provide an opportunity for public input and
review of the process. The first meeting was held at El Toro Water District's
Community Advisory Group meeting.
Then two regional community meetings were advertised via press releases,
water bill inserts, retail agency service counter materials and via the City's
website. One meeting was held in Tustin while the second meeting was held at
Moulton Niguel Water District. Approximately 15 members of the public attended
the meetings, including two members of the Orange County Grand Jury.
Important contacts were made at both meetings, including a hospital
administrator and a local community preparedness organization.
Adoption of the Orange County Regional Water &
Wastewater Mufti- Hazard Mitigation (Hazmft) Plan
November 14, 2006
Page 4
Following the public meetings, the final edits were made to the Plan which
culminated in a Final Draft Plan being completed on September 29. Our goal is
to complete the approval and adoption process for the plan by November. The
Hazard Mitigation Plan is not binding on any agency, but adoption of the plan by
the local jurisdictions essentially clears the way for the mitigation projects to
move forward when and if specifically approved and funded by the local
jurisdiction. Implementation of some projects many not be possible without
outside funding. The Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan will be submitted to FEMA and the California Office of
Emergency Services for approval once consideration has been completed by all
of the local entities.
The agencies participating in the process committed staff time to provide input
into. the regional plan and to draft goals, objectives, actions and an
implementation plan for their own community. Each participating agency has its
own implementation section.
A copy of the current version of the plan can be viewed or downloaded from the
MWDOC website at: www. mwdoc. com/ DRAFTMuki- HazardMitiaationPlan.htm.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
i
e e M doch, Operations Manager Pete An ista, Utilities Director
Attachments: Exhibit A, Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater
Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
AND WASTEWATER MULTI - HAZARD
MITIGATION ( HAZMIT) PLAN
WHEREAS, beginning in 2004 the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) started restricting grant applications for pre- and post -disaster hazard mitigation
funds for agencies not covered by an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach (City) in conjunction with 19 other
agencies in Orange County together created a joint Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan must be adopted by each participating agency following a
public workshop and filed with the State Office of Emergency Services and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for approval; and
WHEREAS, the City has therefore, prepared and circulated for public review a
draft HAZMIT Plan, and a properly noticed public meetings regarding said Plan held on
September 12 & 14, 2006, and;
WHEREAS, adoption of this HAZMIT Plan qualifies the City to submit for Hazard
Mitigation Implementation Grants and funds available for the purpose of mitigating
damage to public water and wastewater facilities; and
WHEREAS, the HAZMIT Plan shall be periodically reviewed at least once every
five years, and that the City shall make any amendments or changes to its HAZMIT
Plan which are indicated by the review; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach that the Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard
Mitigation Plan is hereby adopted and order filed with the City Clerk. A copy of the
Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard Mitigation ( HAZMIT) Plan
shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Municipal Water District of
Orange County, on behalf of the City of Newport Beach is hereby authorized and
directed to forward the Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard
Mitigation Plan as is to the State Office of Emergency Services and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2006
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•'.
J
PRE -DRAFT REPORT
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AND
WASTEWATER MULTI - HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE
COUNTY
URS PROJECT NO. 27655113.07000
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006
0
PRE - DRAFT REPORT •
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
AND WASTEWATER MULTI- HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Municipal Water District of Orange County
10500 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92728
URS Project No. 276551 13.07000
September 29, 2006
1615 Murray Canyon Road; Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92108-4314
619.294.9400 Fax: 619.293.7920
.. •
r1
L J
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Plan Description/Purpose of Plan ................................................. .................:............. 1_1
1.2 Plan Purpose and Authority .......................................................... ............................... 1-2
1:3 Participating Water Jurisdictions Backgrounds . .................................. :....................... 11 -33 .
IA Participating Wastewater Jurisdictions .........
................ : ............................ 1 -16
Section 2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation
2.1 List of Participating Water Districts and City Public Utilities ............................2 -1
Section 3 Planning Process Documentation
3.1 Description of Each Jurisdiction's Participation in the Planning Process ....................3 -1
3.2 . Description of Planning Committee Formation ........................................... :................ 33 =2
3.3 Name of Planning Committee and its Members .......:................... ............................... 3 -2
3.4 Hazard Mitigation. Working Group Meetings ............................... ..........:....:............... 3_4
3.5 Planning Process Milestones ........................................................ ............................... 35
3.6 . Public Invol vement ....................................................................... .................:............. 3 -6
3.7 Existing Plans or Studies Reviewed ............................................. ......... ...................... 3 =7
Section 4 Risk Assessment
4.1
4.2
Overview of the Risk Assessment Process ........................................................... :...... 44 =1
Hazard Identification and Screening ............................................. ............................... L2:
4.3
Hazard Profiles ............................................................................. ...............................
4 -7
4.4
Vulnerability Assessment ............................................................... ......... :.................4 -43
4.5
Multi - Jurisdictional Assessment ...................... ............................... ...........................4 -59
Section 5 General
Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives
5.1
Purpose of the Plan ............................:...:...................................... ................. ...............
5 -1
5.2
Regional Considerations ............................................................... ...............................
5 -3
5.3
Regional Goals and Objectives for Hazard Mitigation Planning for Water ...............5-4
5.4
Regional Goals ands Objectives for Hazard Mitigation Planning for Wastewater.....5
-7'
5.5
Implementation Through Existing Programs ................................... : .......... ....5 -10
5.6
Buena Park, City of- Objectives, Goals and Actions ................ ............................... 5 -13
5.7
El Toro Water District - Objectives, Goals and Actions ................ ...........................5 -23
5.8
Garden Grove, City of- Objectives, Goals and Actions ............ ............................... 5-A
5.9
Laguna Beach County Water District - Objectives, Goals and Actions ..... :............. 5 -46
5.10
La Habra, City of- Objective, Goals and Actions ........................ ........................... -:54.
5.11
Mesa Consolidated Water District Objective, Goals and Actions ......... _ ................
5.12
Moulton Niguel Water District- Objective, Goals and Actions ............................... 5 -71
5.13
Municipal Water District of Orange County Objective, Goals and Actions ...........581
5.14
Newport Beach, City of- Objective, Goals and Actions ........... ............................... 5 -88
5.15
Orange County Sanitation District = Objectives, Goals and Actions ......................
5 -100
5.16
Orange County Water District - Objective, Goals and Actions ..............................5
-106
5.17
Orange, City of Objective, Goals and Actions ....................... ...............................
5-112
5.18
Santa Margarita Water District- Objective, Goals and Actions .............................
5 -120
.. �
Atiwerte\9ee9m t HALmc�e�0U�6�50G
-TABLE OF CONTENTS .
5.19 Serrano Water District — Objectives, Goals and Actions ............ ; ............................ 5-129
5.20 South Coast Water District — Objective, Goals and Actions ...................................
5.21 South Orange County Wastewater Authority- Objectives, Goals and Actions ........5-146
5.22 Trabuco Canyon Water District— Objective, Goals and Actions ......................5.153
5.23 Tustin, City of—Objective, Goals and Actions ......................................................
J5-161
5.24 Westminster, City of — Objective, Goals and Actions .............................................
5-171
5.25 Yorba Linda Water District — Objective, Goals and Actions ...........................5
-180 -180
Seddon 6 Plan Maintenance
6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan ...........................................................
6-1
Section 7 References
Section 8 Appendices
•
List of Tables and figures
Tables
Table 1.3 -1
Existing Water Supply Sources for Water Utilities in Orange County
Table 1.3 -2
Sources of Potable Water for OC Retail Agencies by Sub - Region
Table 1.3 -3
Orange County Potable Water Demands and Supplies, Current/Future
Table 1.3-4
Existing Potable Water Storage Volume and Portion Available for Emergency
Table 1.3 -5
Potable Well Water Production Capacity to Year 2025 by Producer
Table 3 -1
Planning Representatives for Participating Jurisdictions.
Table 4.2.2 -1
Summary of Hazard Identification Results
Table 4.2.4 -1
Summary of Hazards Excluded from Hazard Profiling
Table 4.3.4.3 -1
Palmer Drought Severity Index
Table 4.3.5.3 -1
Partial List of Earthquake Events in the Southern California Region
Table 4.3.11.2 -1
Historic Tornado Events in Orange County (1958 -2005)
Table 4.4.2 -1
Abbreviation of Costs
Table 4.4.2 -2
Summary of Assets
Table 4.4.2 -3
Moderate Earthquake Threat— Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of
Exposure Value by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -4
High Earthquake Threat - Inventory. of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of Exposure
Value by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -5
Extreme Earthquake Threat - Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of
Exposure Value by Jurisdiction
•
Table 4.4.2 -6
500 Year Flood Plain - Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of Exposure
Value by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -7
Slope over 25%: Landslide Hazard - Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
of Exposure Value by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -8
Liquefaction— Moderate -Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of .. .
Exposure Value by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -9
Liquefaction— High - Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of Exposure'.. .
Value by Jurisdiction, .
Table 4.42 -10
Liquefaction — Very High - inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of ,
Exposure Value by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -11
Low Fire Threat - Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of Exposure Value '
by Jurisdiction
Table 4.42 -12
High Fire Threat - Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure of Exposure Value
.
by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -13
Extreme Fire Threat - Inventory of Critical Facilities and.Infiastructure of Exposure .
Value by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -14
Moderate to Extreme Earthquake — Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water.
Line by Jurisdiction
Table ,IA2 -15
Flood: 100 Year and 500 Year— Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water
Line by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -16
Landslide — Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste. Water Line by Jurisdiction
•
MtWemCiS� 1 WACrc9OCt4STZG
111
list of Tables and Figures •
Table 4.4.2 -17 Moderate to Very High Liquefaction — Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste
Water Line by Jurisdiction
Table 4.4.2 -18 Low to Extreme Wildlife/Structure Fire — Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste
Water Line by Jurisdiction
Table 4.5.1.1 -1 Characteristics of Imported Geologic Faults in Orange County, CA
Table 4.4.2.2 -1 Possible Loss of Local. Water Supply due to Earthquake in/near Orange County by
Retail Agency as a Percentage of Normal Local Supply Rate
Table 4.4.2.2 -2 Possible Water Shortages in Event of a Major Earthquake in Orange County by Retail
aawowdsxua I K%d0d64Dd0asoo
IV
Water Agency
Table 5.5 -1
Joint Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.5 -2
MET Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.6.2 -1
City of Buena Park Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.6.3 -1
City of Buena Park Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.6.4 -1
City of Buena Park Fiscal Capability
Table 5.6.5 -1
City of Buena Park Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.6 -1
City of Buena Park Loss Estimation Table
Table, 5.7.3 -1
El Toro Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.7.4 -1
El Toro Water District Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.7.5 -1
EI Toro Water District Fiscal Capability
Table 5.7.6 -1
El Toro Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
•
Table 5.7 -1
El.Toro Water Distict Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.8.3 -1
City of Garden Grove Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.8.4 -1
City of Garden Grove Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.8.5 -1
City of Garden Grove Fiscal Capability
Table 5.8=1
City of Garden Grove Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.9.3 -1
Laguna Beach County Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.9.4 -1
Laguna Beach County Water District Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.9.5 -1
Laguna Beach County Water District Fiscal Capability
Table 5.9:6 -1
Laguna Beach County Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.9 -1
Laguna Beach County Water District Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.10.2 -1
City of La Habra Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.10.3 -1
City of La Habra Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.10.4 -1.
. City of La Habra Fiscal Capability
Table 5.10.5- l
City of La Habra Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.10-1
City of La Habra Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.11.2 -1
Mesa Consolidated Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5:11.3 -1
Mesa Consolidated Water District Administrative. and Technical Capacity
Table 5.1 1.4 -1 .
Mesa Consolidated Water District Fiscal Capability
Table 5.11 -1
Mesa Consolidated Water District Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.12.3 -1
Moulton Niguel Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability.
Table 5.12.4 -1
Moulton Niguel Water District Administrative and Technical Capacity
aawowdsxua I K%d0d64Dd0asoo
IV
r-1
LJ
Table 5.12.5 -1 Moulton Niguel Water District Fiscal Capability
Table 5.12.6 -1
Table 5.12 -1
Table 5.13.3 -1
Table 5.13.4 -1
Table 5.13.5 -1
Table 5.13.6 -1
Table 5.13 -1
Table 5.14.3 -1
Table 5.14.4 -1
Table 5.14.5 -1
Table 5.14.6.1 -1
Table, 5.14 -1
Table 5.15.2 -1
Table 5.15:34
Table 5.15:4 -1
Table 5.15.5 -1
List Of Tables and Figures
Moulton Niguel Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Moulton Niguel Water District Loss. Estimation Table .
Municipal Water District of Orange County Legal and Regulatory Capability
Municipal Water District of Orange County Administrative and Technical Capacity
Municipal Water District of Orange County Fiscal Capability
Municipal Water District of Orange County Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Municipal Water District of Orange County, Loss Estimation Table
City of Newport Beach Legal and Regulatory Capability
City of Newport Beach Administrative and Technical Capacity
City of Newport Beach Fiscal Capability
City of Newport Beach Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
City of Newport Beach Loss Estimation Table .
Orange County Sanitation District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Orange County Sanitation District Administrative and Technical Capacity
Orange County Sanitation District Fiscal Capability
Orange. County Sanitation District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.15 -1
Orange County Sanitation District.Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.16.2 -1
Orange County Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.16.3 -1
Orange County Water District Administrative. and Technical Capacity
•
Table. 5.16.4 -1
Orange County Water District Fiscal Capability.
Table 5.16
Orange County Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.16 -1
Orange County Water District Loss Estimation Table,
Table 5.17.2 -1
City of Orange Legal and Regulatory Capability .
Table 5.17.3 -1
City of Orange Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.17:4 -1
City of Orange Fiscal Capability
Table 5.17.5 -1
City of Orange Local Mitigation.Capability Assessment
Table 5.17 -1
City of Orange Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.182.1 -1
Santa'Margarita Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.183 -1
Santa Margarita Water District Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.18.4 -1
Santa Margarita Water District Fiscal Capability
Table 5.18.5 -1
Santa Margarita Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.18 -1
Santa Margarita Water District Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.19.2 -1
Serrano Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.19.3 -1
Serrano Water District Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.19.4 -1
Serrano Water District Fiscal Capability
Table 5.19.5 -1 ,'
Serrano Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.19 -1
Serrano Water District Loss Estimation Table
Table 5:20.2 -1
South Coast Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.20.3 -1
South Coast Water District Administrative and Technical Capacity
•
Table 5.20.4 -1
South Coast Water District Fiscal Capability
'
..
_ ncunremasaaa� � ee+.aoesoaasuoc
list of Tables and Figures •
Table 5.20.5 -1
South Coast Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.20 -1.
South Coast Water District Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.21.3 -1
South Orange County Wastewater Authority Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.21.4 -1
South Orange County Wastewater Authority Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.21.5 -1
South Orange County Wastewater Authority Water District Capability
Table 5.21
South Orange County Wastewater Authority Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 521 -1
South Orange County Wastewater Authority Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.22.3 -1
Trabuco Canyon. Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.22.4 -1
Trabuco Canyon Water District Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.22.5 -1
Trabuco Canyon Water District Fiscal Capability
Table 5.22.6 -1
Trabuco Canyon Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.22 -1
Trabuco Canyon Water District Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.23.3 -1
City of Tustin Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 523:4 -1
City of Tustin Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 5.23.5 -1
City of Tustin Fiscal Capability
Table 523.6 -1
City of Tustin Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.23 -1
City of Tustin Loss Estimation Table
Table 5243 -4
City of Westminster Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.24.4 -1
City of Westminster Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 524.5 -1
City of Westminster Fiscal Capability . •
Table 5.24.6 -1
City of Westminster Local Mitigation CapabilityAssessmenf
Table 524 -1.
City of Westminster Loss Estimation Table
Table 5.25.4 -1
Yorba Linda Water District Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.25.5 -1
Yorba Linda Water District Administrative and Technical Capacity
Table 525.6 -1
Yorba Linda Water District Fiscal Capability
Table 525.7 -1
Yorba Linda Water District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.25 -1
Yorba Linda Water District Loss Estimation Table
MWJaMuactionl HM.QoOBUd-0bUd(i
vi
•
List of Tables and Figures
Figures
Figure 13 -1
Orange County Retail Agencies & Regional Water Facilities
Figure 1.3 -2
Orange County Retail Agencies & Sub -Areas
Figure 1.3.4.1 -1
Orange County Water District Basin Areas
Figure 1.4.1.1 -1
Orange County Sanitation District Service Area
Figure IA.2 -1
SOCWA Regional Wastewater System
Figure 2 -1
Participating Jurisdictions MWDOC Mitigation Plan
Figure 2 -2
MWDOC's Service Area and Member Utilities
Figure 4.31 a
Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County
Figure 4.31b
Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County
Figure 4.31 c
Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County ,
Figure 4.31d
Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County
Figure 4.31 e.
Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County
Figure 4.31 f
Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County
Figure 4.3 -2
Earthquake- Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4.3 -3
Liquefaction - Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4.3-4
Flood- Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4.3 -5
Slopes Greater Than 25 % Landslide— Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation
•
Plan
Figure 4.3 -6
Urban/Wildland Fire Threat- Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4.4.2.1 -1
Active Geologic Faults in/near Orange County
Figure 4.4.2.1 -2
Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.9 Newport Inglewood
Fault
Figure 4.4.2.1 -3
Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 Peralta Hills Fault
Figure 4.4.2.1 -4
Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 7.5 Puente Hells Fault
Figure 4.4.2.1 -5
Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.6 San Joaquin Hills Fault
Figure 4.4.2.1 -6
Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 Whittier Fault
Figure 5.6 -1
Buena Park Water Assets
Figure 5.7 -1
El Toro Water District Water Assets
Figure 5.8 -1
Garden Grove Water and Wastewater Assets
Figure 5.9 -1
Laguna Beach County Water District Water Assets
Figure 5.10 -1
La Habra Water Assets
Figure 5.11 -1
Mesa Consolidated Water District Water and Wastewater Assets
Figure 5.12 -1
Moulton Niguel Water District Water and Wastewater Assets
Figure 5.13 -1
MWDOC, Joint and MET Water Assets
Figure 5.14 -1
Newport Beach Water and Wastewater Assets
Figure 5.15.1
Orange County Sanitation District Wastewater Assets
Figure 5.16 -1
Orange County Water District Water Assets
Figure 5.17 -1
City of Orange Water District
•
Figure 5.18 -1
Santa Margarita Water District Water and Wastewater Assets
'
M1WaadSeclbN HRdxWOa-06V"OG
Vll
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 5.194 South Orange County Wastewater Authority Wastewater Assets
Figure 5.20 -1 Serrano Canyon Water District Water Assets
Figure 5.21 -1 South Coast Water District Water and Wastewater Assets
Figure 5.22 -1 City of Tustin Water Assets
Figure 5.23 -1 Trabuco Canyon Water District Water Assets
Figure 5.24 -1 City of Westminster Water Assets
Figure 5.25 -1 Yorba Linda Water and Wastewater Assets
0
Viii
0
r,
LJ
0
CJ
•
list of Tables and figures
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACOE
Army Corps of Engineers
ADM
Administration
AF/yr
Acre Feet/ year
ALERT
Automated Level Evaluation in Real Time
AMP
Allen- McCo0och Pipeline,
AQMD
Air Quality Management District
ATM
Aufdenkarrq) Transmission Main
BPP
Basin Production Percentage
CA DHS
California Department of Health Services
CATIC '
California A4Terrodsm Information Center
CDBG
Community Development Block Grants
CDF -FRAP
California Department of Forestry -Fire and Resource Assessment Program
CDFG
California Depatnent of Fish and Game
CDR
Center for Demographic Research
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cis
cubic feet per second
CGS
California Geological Survey
CIP Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
CISN
California Integrated Seismic Network
CCE
Corps of Engineers
CRS
CSSC
California Seismic Safety Commission
OHS
Department of Homeland Security
DMA 20GO
Disaster Mitigation Act 2000
EIT
Emergency Interties
EMS
Emergency. Medical Services
EQC
Emergency Operations Center
EPA
U.S. Emrironmental Protection Agency
EPA- VA
Environmental Protection Agency- Vulnerability Assessment
EPCRA
Emergency Planning and Community- Right- ToAnow
ERP
Emergency Response Plan
ESRI
a Geographic Information System software development firm
FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM
FEMA Fkxid Insurance Rate Maps
GIs
Geographic Information System
GPM
gallons per minute
GWR System
Groundwater Replenishment System
HAZUS
(pg 497)
HCA
(p 4125)
HMGP
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HMP
Hazard Mitigation Plan
HMWG .
Hazard Mitigation Waking Group .
How-to Guide
FEMA Sfafe and Loral Ni igatton Planning How4o Guide
IRWD
Nne Ranch Water District
ISPU
Interim Strategic Plan Update
u1AtVOd6eCffW 1 HKdodaoaaMrsDG.
ix
list of Tables and HOW
JRWSS
Joint Regional Water Supply System
JTM
Joint Regional Transmission Main
LADWP
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
LAFCO
Local Agency Formation Committee
LBCWD
Laguna Beach Canyon Water District
LPG
Local Planning Groups
LS
LiftS tation
Mesa
Mesa Consolidated Water District
MET
Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cailtomla
MNWD
Moulton Niguel Water District
MOA
Memorandum of Agreement
MSL
Mean Sea level
MWDOC
Municipal Water DIsW of Orange County
NCCP
National Communities Conservation Plan
NIMS
National Incident Management ,System
NOAA
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWD
National Weather Service
OC
Orange County
OC-44
name of a potable water service connection
OG-88
name of a potable water service connection
OCBC
Orange County Business Council
OCFA
Orange County Fire Authority
OCJTTF
Orange. County Joint Terrorism Task Force
OC -MAIN
table 4.4.8 -2 additional section 4 insert
OCSD
Orange County Sanitation District
OCWD
Orange County Water DlsM
OES
Caltmmia Office of Emergency Services
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
POD
Presidential Decision Directive
PDSI
"Palmer Drought Severity index"
PGA
Peak Ground 'Acceleration
PP
Power Plant
PRS
Pressure Reducing Station
PS
Pump Station
PSTRG
Private Sector Tefrortsm Response Group
PW
potable water
PWU
Participating Water and Wastewater Utilities
R-8
Name of a reservoir
RDMD
County of Orange Resource Development and Management Department
RES
Reservoir
RMS
Reservoir Management Systems
RWOCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAMP
Special Area Master Plan
SAR
Santa Ana River
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SAWPA
Santa Ara Watershed Project Authority
SC
Service Connectors
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
uvvameise�crwdxeo 4ewG
x
0
•
•
.. - MSh%=LSedim7HMEOCB.00-0S1°DG.
Xi
Us[ of Tables and figures
•
SCEC
Southern California Earthquake Center
SCEDC
Southern California Earthquake Data Center
SCP
South County Pipeline
SCWD
South Coast Water District
SEMS
Standardized Emergency Management System
SMWD
Santa Margarita Water District
SOCWA
South Orange County Wastewater Authority
SONGS
San Onofre Nuclear Generating StaFron
Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Econom c, and Environmental
STAPLES
Considerations
TCWD
Trabuco Canyon Water District
MS
Total Dissolved Solids
TEWG
Terrorism Early Warning Working Group
Tolle M&22 (potable)
California Drinking Water Regulation
TRI
Toxic Release Inventory
TWG
Terrorism Working Group
USACE
United States Army Carps of Engineers
USFS
United States Forest Service
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
W.I.S.E.
(pg 4a)
WD
Water DisMct
WELL
Well
WEROC
Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County
WMD
Weapons of Mass Destruction
WRP Lab
(pg 4-182)
WST
Water Storage Tank
WTP
Water Treatment Plant
WUE
Water Use Efficiency
WW
waste water
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Punt
YLWD
Yorba Linda Water District
.. - MSh%=LSedim7HMEOCB.00-0S1°DG.
Xi
0
SECTIONONE Introduction
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
Across the United States, natural and manmade disasters have led to increasing levels of death, injury,
property damage, and interruption of business and government services. The impact on families and
individuals can be immense and damages to businesses can result in regional economic consequences.
The time, money, and effort to respond to and recover from these disasters divert public resources and
attention from other important programs and problems. Correspondingly, the Municipal Water District of
Orange County prepared a Hazard Mitigation Plan that identified critical facilities in the county, and
mitigation actions in the form of projects and programs to reduce the impact of natural and manmade
hazards. This Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan (the Plan) is being prepared for the MWDOC and 19 other
participating water and wastewater utilities (PWU). As such, the Plan focuses on water and wastewater
facilities in Orange County, California and identifies mitigation actions to reduce the impact of natural
and manmade hazards on these critical facilities. The Plan was prepared with input from county
residents, responsible officials, URS Corporation consultants, and with the support of the State of
California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The process to develop the Plan included nearly a year of coordination with representatives
from MWDOC and all of the PWU. The Plan will guide MWDOC and the PWU toward greater disaster
resistance in harmony with the character and needs of the community.
This section of the Plan includes an overview of the Plan, a discussion of the Plan's purpose and
• authority, and a description of the relationship between MWDOC and the PWU within Orange County.
1.1 PLAN DESCRIPTION /PURPOSE OF PLAN
C�
J
Federal legislation has historically provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard
mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the latest legislation to improve
this planning process (Public Law 106 -390). The new legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation
planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. As such, DMA 2000 establishes a pre -
disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post - disaster Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP).
Section 322 of DMA 2000 specifically addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels. It
identifies new requirements that allow HMGP funds to be used for planning activities, and increases the
amount of HMGP funds available to states that have developed a comprehensive, enhanced mitigation
plan prior to a disaster. States and communities must have an approved mitigation plan in place prior to
receiving pre or .post disaster funds. Local mitigation plans must demonstrate that their proposed
mitigation measures are based on a sound planning process that accounts for the risk to and the
capabilities of the individual communities.
State governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 322, including:
• Preparing and submitting a standard or enhanced state mitigation plan;
• Reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three years;
tw M: MMOSeclion 1 HMAGGTY Od-0&1SDG
1 -1
SECTIONONE Introduction •
• Providing technical assistance and training to local governments to assist them in applying for
HMGP grants and in developing local mitigation plans; and
• Reviewing and approving local plans if the state is designated a managing state and has an
approved enhanced plan.
DMA 2000 is intended to facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities, prompting them to
work together. It encourages and rewards local and state pre-disaster planning and promotes sustainability
as a strategy for disaster resistance. This enhanced planning network is intended to enable local and state
governments to articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more
effective risk reduction projects.
FEMA prepared an Interim Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (44 CFR
Parts 201 and 206), which establishes planning and funding criteria for states and local communities.
For federal approval, the following criteria must be met during the planning process:
• Complete documentation of the planning process.
• Detailed risk assessment of hazard exposures in the community.
• Comprehensive mitigation strategy, describing goals and objectives, proposed strategies,
programs and actions to avoid long -term vulnerabilities. •
• A planned maintenance process will describe the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating
and updating the plan, and the integration of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into other planning
mechanisms.
• The formal adoption of the Plan by the Board of Directors for each PWU and City Council for
each participating city water utility.
• Plan review by both State OES and FEMA.
The Plan has been prepared to meet FEMA and OES requirements, thus making MWDOC and the PWU
eligible for funding and technical assistance for state and federal hazard mitigation programs.
1.2 PLAN PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
As the cost of the damage from natural disasters continues to increase, the PWU realizes the importance
of identifying effective ways to reduce vulnerability to disasters. Hazard mitigation plans assist
communities in reducing risk from natural hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies
for risk reduction, while guiding and coordinating mitigation activities throughout the County.
The Orange County Water and Wastewater Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a
framework for water and wastewater utilities to plan for natural and man-made hazards in Orange County.
The resources and background information in the Plan are applicable countywide, providing the
groundwork for goals and recommendations for other local mitigation plans and partnerships.
URS M.Wemd%SvCfvn 1 HM dDW-Wd ISDG
1 -2
11
• SECTIONONE Introduction
The Plan is intended to serve many purposes, including:
• Enhance Public Awareness and Understanding — to help residents of the County better
understand the natural and manmade hazards that threaten public health, safety, and welfare;
economic vitality; and the operational capability of important facilities;
• Create a Decision Tool for Management — to provide information so that water and wastewater
managers and leaders of local government, may take action to address vulnerabilities to future
disasters;
• Promote Compliance with State and Federal Program Requirements — to ensure that
MWDOC/PWU can take full advantage of state and federal grant programs, policies, and
regulations that encourage or mandate that local governments and special districts develop
comprehensive hazard mitigation plans;
• Enhance Local Policies for Hazard Mitigation Capability — to provide the policy basis for
mitigation actions that should be promulgated by MWDOC/PWU to create a more disaster -
resistant future;
• Provide Inter - Jurisdictional Coordination of Mitigation - Related Programming — to ensure that
proposals for mitigation initiatives are reviewed and coordinated among MWDOC/PWU within
the County; and
• Achieve Regulatory Compliance — to qualify for certain forms of federal aid for pre- and post-
disaster funding, local jurisdictions must comply with the federal DMA 2000 and its
implementing regulations (44 CFR Section 201.6). DMA 2000 intends for hazard mitigation
plans to remain relevant and current. Therefore, it requires that state hazard mitigation plans are
updated every three years and local plans, including MWDOC/PWU, every five years. This
means that the Hazard Mitigation Plan for MWDOC uses a "five -year planning horizon." It is
designed to carry MWDOC/PWU through the next five years, after which its assumptions, goals,
and objectives will be revisited and the Plan resubmitted for approval.
The Plan provides action items to reduce risk from natural hazards by fostering the development of
partnerships and implementation of preventative activities.
The resources and information within the Plan:
• Establish a basis for coordination and collaboration among MWDOC/PWU and the public in the
County of Orange;
• Identify and prioritize future mitigation projects; and
• Assist in meeting the requirements of federal assistance programs.
1.3 PARTICIPATING WATER JURISDICTIONS BACKGROUND
Orange County relies on numerous sources of water and water purveyors to meet the needs of its growing
• population. There are thirty-two retail water utilities in Orange County. A retail water utility can be a city
um M:WVOMCGS .1 HMAbdW6 0d-0MDG
1 -3
SECTIONONE I lunducUon •
water department, a water district, or a private water company. Each has a distinct service area and
sources of potable water supply. Figure 1.3 -1 shows the locations of water utilities and regional facilities
in Orange County.
Regional water management in Orange County is provided through MWDOC and the Orange County
Water District (OCWD). Together, these utilities assist in the management of imported water, Santa Ana
River water and the OCWD groundwater basin for over three million residents and businesses in Orange
County.
MWDOC and OCWD work together to provide water to the thirty two retail utilities in the County. For
hazard mitigation planning with respect to water systems, it is important to remember that each retail
Utility may have different source mixes of potable water supply and thus different exposures to
vulnerability from supply disruptions. It is also important to note that retail utilities with heavy reliance
on the imported system can have their supplies disrupted by an outage of either the Diemer Filtration
Plant in Yorba Linda or one of the several pipelines leading from the treatment plant. Outages of
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) facilities bringing water to the County can also
be the cause of imported service disruptions. Utilities relying on local supplies, especially when there are
multiple sources such as wells within the OCWD groundwater basin, have a lower risk profile from
imported system disruptions.
As will be discussed later in the report, the most extreme risk to the regional imported water system in
Orange County is from earthquakes. Based on the risk profile of having the import system knocked out •
from an earthquake, the County can be grouped into three regions based on the availability of local
groundwater resources to the region. The three regions are:
• Brea/La Habra
• OCWD (Orange County Water District) Basin
• South Orange County
The thirty two retail water utilities are shown in Figure 1.3 -1 and are grouped by the three regions in
Figure 1.3 -2 and Table 1.3 -1.
Table 1.3 -2 shows the percentage of sources of potable water utilized by each retail water utility. Some of
the water utilities have significantly reduced their potable water (drinking water) demands by creating a
non - domestic water system that delivers non - potable water (usually recycled wastewater) for landscape
irrigation and other non - drinking water uses. However, the majority of water demand in Orange County
is for potable water. Local potable sources can be summarized for the three regions, as follows:
•
M1Wer0dF9ctlan i HKd0GW-W-06%SDG
14
u
0 0
SECTIONONE
Introduction
Figure 1.3 -1 Orange Counh Retail Agencies and Regional Water Facilities
k
9
III -
I
I
I
ii
b�
— MET Untreated Water Pipeline
— MET Treater Water PiWim
Jm t MET/LO : Agency Rpellne
— J.M Lp l Agency Rpeline
■ Malar Water Feca,ty N
• Reservwrs w�E
511
Orange County Water Retailers and
Transmission Mains
• UM Docvnenll \thOw-061SDG
i
RL
I
• UM Docvnenll \thOw-061SDG
i
RL
SECTIONONE
Figure 1.3 -2 Orange County Retail Agencies and Sub -Areas
landuction
Brea /La Haba Sub -Area J!�\
t^
40UCCJ CN
Basin Sub -Area
YP'£R pf�R
•cy4O!J.
South DC Sub -Area
$4R.HM
CAP {'R1k�J
5
Sub -Areas of Orange County
Based on Water Supply Regime ~�
onanoc
cower.
M'%Wm %Se ion 1 HM dcC .O -06l
1 -6
r�
r, J
r�
I�
1
•
SECTIONONE
Table 1.3 -1
Sm.rrou nF Pntahle Water For Or Retail Agencies by Sub-Region
INIM901on
Sub-
Region
Retail Water
Agency
OCWD
Basin
We 1Ls
Own
Wells
not in
OCWD
Ground
Water
from
Others
Surface
Water,
Treated
Met
Diemer
Treat-
meat
Plant
Other
Met
Treat -
ment
Plants
Brea/
Brea, City of
X
X
X
LaHabra
La Habra, City of
X
I X
X
X
Anaheim, City of
X
X
X
X
Buena Park, City of
X
X
X
East Orange CWD
X
X
Fountain Valley
X
X
X
Fullerton
X
X
X
Garden Grove
X
X
X
Golden State —East
X
X
X
Plac./YL
X
X
X
West OC
X
X
X
Huntington Beach
X
X
X
OCWD
Irvine Ranch WD
X
XT--
X
X
Basin
La Palma
X
X
X
Mesa Consol. WD
X
X
X
Newport Beach
X
X
X
Orange
X
X
X
Orange Park Acres
X
X
Santa Ana
X
X
X
Seal Beach
X
X
X
Serrano WD
X
X
Tustin
X
X
Westminster
X
X
X
Yorba Linda WD
X
X
El Toro WD
X
Emerald Bay SD
X
X
Laguna Beach CWD
X
X
South
Moulton Niguel WD
X
OC
San Clemente
X
X
San Juan Capo
X
X
Santa Margarita WD
X
X
South Coast WD
X
X
Trabuco Canyon
WD
X
X
X
Counts
33
22
7
2
1 3
32
20
A - i.gm�y cm numvny rtcerve pomeic wmcr vwn mrr —ww
1= 1RwD Herding Canyon pmdmdm is yiomdwamr wda' the inaemee ofswfam wryer, and r be veaLd
2 =SCW'D braclush gromdwaier rem way plmt is undo cmaw m
•
M:lwemdGoMon 1 HMAW&Od�GDG
SECTIONONE
Introduction
• The Brea/La Habra region receives about 12,000 AF /yr of groundwater from the San Gabriel
Basin in Los Angeles County through California Domestic Water Company and about an equal
amount from MET. La Habra also has a small groundwater well.
• The OCWD Basin utilities pump 64 to 75 percent of their annual needs from the OCWD
groundwater Basin; most of the rest of their supply is MET treated water. Anaheim produces
about 12,000 acre feet/yr from its treatment plant served by a MET raw water pipeline. Serrano
WD produces potable water from local runoff captured in Irvine Lake, which is then processed
through its treatment plant for its own use, as well as to sell to the City of Orange.
The South Orange County area is about 95% dependent on MET for its potable water supply;
local groundwater in the South Orange County area is typically, in much smaller amounts than
the OCWD Basin, and is high in TDS (salt). Trabuco Canyon WD has a 6 cfs treatment plant
which draws from a MET raw water pipeline for its own use and can provide limited potable
water to Santa Margarita WD when needed.
Table 1.3 -2
Existing Water Supply Sources for Water Utilities in Orange County
Retailed Water Utility
Metropolitan Water I
Ground Water
Surface Water
Recycled/Non•Pot.
Water
City of Buena Park
34%
66%
El Toro WD
95%
5%
City of Garden Grove
35%
65%
City of La Habra
30%
70%
Laguna Beach CWD
100%
0%
Mesa Consolidated
WD
5%
95%
4 4%
Moulton Niguel WD
83%
0%
17%
City of Newport Beach
33%
67%
<1%
City of Orange
32%
66%
2%
Santa Margarita WD
84%
16%
Serrano WD
53%
47%
South Coast WD
88%
120/6
Trabuco Canyon WD
75%
5%
00k
20%
City of Tustin
16%
84 %'
City of Westminster
33%
67%
Yorba Linda WD
48%
52%
i Metropolitan Water District of Southern Calffomia import water to Southern California from the Colorado River Basin and from Northern
California. Long- Term'ln -Lieu' water deliveries included.
I Recycled municipal wastewater andfor Non - Potable surface.
tm MVVemdSocUon 7 HMd0de0d -WISDG
1-8
0
•
•
SECTIONONE Introduction
1.3.1 Potable Water System Supplies - Current and Future
Orange County total water demands would have been about 735,000 AF /yr in 2005, however, water use
efficiency efforts have shaved off about 58,000 AF/yr of demand. Recycling plus non - domestic supplies
are at the 50,000 AF /yr level. This leaves about 627,000 AF /yr of potable water demand in 2005,
growing to about 746,000 AF/yr by 2025. At present, about half of OC's potable water supplies are
imported from MET. As shown in Table 1.3 -3, OC population is projected to rise from 3.1 million to 3.7
million people, and potable water demand is projected to rise at just about the same rate. Potable water
supplies that were used in 2005 and are projected for 2025 are summarized by source in Table 1.3 -3.
Table 1.3 -3
Orange County Potable Water Demands and Supplies, Current/Future
tm KWVemclSedion 1 HMAGO&Odl WGDG
1 -9
2005
2025
% Inc
Notes
Population millions
3.1
3.7
1 19%
2005 actual; projections per CDR, CSUF
ACRE -FEET
a. Water demand before WUE
735,000
936,D00
27%
Based on OC -MAIN , rounded
b. Less WUE
58,000
115,000
27%
Based on OC- rounded
a - b = Consumptive Water
677,000
821,000
21%
demand
c. Less Recycling.& Non.
50,000
75,000
50%
Recycled & Non - Domestic Projections per
domestic supply
agencies' responses to MWDOC 5 -yr. Water
Demand survey Spring '05. if the achieved
a - b - c = Consumptive
627,000
746,000
19%
Recycled & Non - Domestic supplies are less
Demand for Potable Water
than projected, potable water demand will
increase.
d. OCWD Basin pumping
350,000
450,000
29%
Projection per agencies' responses to survey
Spring `05, with assumed BPP of 75% If
Santa Ana River capture is limited, future
basin pumping would be less than shown.
e. Less Import. Replenishment
60,000
60,000
0%
OCWD's continued purchase of
replenishment water in firture assumes
continued availability from MET; otherwise
pumping volume would decrease.
d -e = OCWD Basin pumping,
290,000
390,000
34%
Increase shown results from GWRS
non - imported source water only
production of 72,000 agyr and increased
capture of Santa Ana River water.
f. Non -OCWD Basin potable
2,000
9,000
350%
Increase is from San Juan (4,800 af/yr), and
water wells
Capistrano Beach Desalters (1,300 aflyr)
and others.
g. Cal Domestic supply to Brea
13,000
13,000
0%
& La Habra
h. Anaheim WTP
12,500
14,500
16%
i. Serrano WTP
2,500
3,000
20%
'. Trabuco WTP
3,000
4,000 1
33%
k. Ocean Water Desal Plant
25,000
n/a
If ocean desal production is less than shown,
demand on Met would increase.
a - b - c - d - e - f - g - h -j - k
304,000
287,500
-5%
By subtraction. Does not include water for
= Met treated full service
replenishment of OCWD Basin.
water
Sum of Potable Supplies
627,000
746,000
190/0
tm KWVemclSedion 1 HMAGO&Odl WGDG
1 -9
SECTIONONE tmroduetion •
CFS
Annual average demand rate
870
1 1,030 IS%
Potable'water only, rounded
Peak mo. demand rate 1.35
1,170
1,390 19%
Potable water only, rounded
L MWDOC's OC -MAIN model dated Dec 2000 is an aomm k model that used demographics prepared by the Center for Demographic Research CSUF. The
OC-MAM model projected is 5 -yr imarvats from 2005 through 2020. MWDOC projeesed 2025 mumben by straight -line extension from the model's 2015 and
2020 numbers.
1.3.2 Emergency Supplies
For emergency supply analyses, it is assumed that all local water treatment plants (WTPs) would be rum at
full capacity. The City of Orange would use any of the Serrano WTP capacity not being used by Serrano.
Reservoir storage provides a source of emergency water, but its rate of supply during a system outage
event is limited based upon the type and duration of event. For a planned facility outage, it is assumed
that tanks would be topped off prior to the outage, and 70% of tank volume would be "available" during
the outage period. But an earthquake could strike with tank storage at various levels, and it is assumed
that only 30% of tank volume would be "available ". The "available" volume would be drawn down at a
steady rate over the duration of the outage (7 days for a planned outage, 10 -31 days for an earthquake).
Gross storage volumes and "available" volumes for each water utility are shown in Table 1.3 -4.
1.3.3 Imported Water
MWDOC is Orange County's imported water wholesaler, supplying 29 water retailers. These entities,
comprised of cities and water districts, are referred to as MWDOC member utilities and provide water to
approximately 2.3 million customers. MWDOC. represents the interests of its member utilities and is
MET's third largest member utility. The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana are direct MET
member utilities and are not represented by MWDOC.
Imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River meet approximately half of the
County's water needs. This water is provided by MET, which serves the needs of six counties — Ventura,
Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego.
MET "imports" water from the distant Colorado River and Northern California, and treats the raw water
to potable quality at its water treatment plants. The MET Diemer Treatment Plant in Yorba Linda can
deliver water to all of Orange County via MET feeders and joint - utility pipelines. Additionally, the
western portion of Orange County can be served by MET's Jensen Treatment Plant via the Sepulveda
Feeder and other feeders. The Brea/La Habra and the OCWD Basin areas obtain some flow from MET's
Weymouth Treatment Plant via the relatively small Orange County Feeder. The South Orange County
area receives almost all its imported water from MET's Diemer Plant, via the Allen- McColloch Pipeline
(AMP) and its extension, the South County Pipeline (SCP), and via the East Orange County Feeder No. 2
(EOCF #2) and its main extensions the Joint Regional Transmission Main (JTM) and Aufdenkamp
Transmission Main (ATM). The MET OC -88 South County Pump Station (OC -88 SCPS) is a key
facility, boosting water about 300 feet hydraulically from the AMP into the SCP to allow service
throughout south Orange County. About 10 cfs of flow from MET can reach Laguna Beach via the south
end of the Orange County Feeder and the Coast Supply Line. There are three large lined- and - covered
M1WemelSaWon 1 HMAo0b4)c1-061aDG
1 -10
•
•
11
SECTIONONE I introduction
reservoirs in the County of Orange: the El Toro Water District's R -6 Reservoir, the City of Newport
Beach's Big Canyon Reservoir, and the MET's Orange County Reservoir in Brea.
Regarding imported water supplies, there are many assumptions that are noted in Table 1.3 -3. The largest
unknown is the success rate of planned local projects. If the water supply projects do not get built or
produce less than planned or are merely delayed, then more MET water will be needed than shown. With
the planned local projects plus the continued availability of MET Replenishment water for the OCWD
Basin, Table 1.3 -3 shows a 5% decrease in Full -Service MET water demand out to 2025.
For hazard mitigation purposes relative to water supply in Orange County, the continued heavy reliance
on imported water points out the need to ensure the high reliability of the import system both inside of
Orange County and those portions of the MET system bringing the water to Orange County.
1.3.4 Groundwater
Among all local supplies available to retail agencies, groundwater sources supply the most water. The
water supply resources in Orange County result from the existence of the following three groundwater
basins.
• OCWD Groundwater Basin
• • La Habra Groundwater Basin
• San Juan Capistrano Groundwater Basin (San Juan Basin Authority)
1.3.4.1 OCWD Groundwater Basin
The Orange County Basin is by far the largest groundwater basin in Orange County. The underlying
formations are dominated by a deep structural depression containing a thick accumulation of fresh water -
bearing interbedded marine and continental sand, silt and clay deposits. The proportion of fine material
generally increases toward the coast, dividing the Basin into forebay and pressure areas. Figure 1.3.4.1 -1
shows an overview of the basin areas. The sediments containing easily recoverable fresh water extend to
about 2;000 feet below the ground surface near the center of the Basin. Well yields range from 500 to
4,500 gallons per minute (gpm), but are generally 2,000 to 3,000 gpm.
Historically, OCWD managed the Basin based upon seeking to increase supply rather than restricting
demand. Nonetheless, a Basin Production Percentage (i.e., pumping limitation) is established each year
by OCWD to ensure the long term beneficial use of the Basin. Because the Basin is not operated on an
annual safe -yield basis, the net change in storage in any given year may be positive or negative; however,
over the long term, the Basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long -term
viability of Basin supplies.
Currently, groundwater is produced from approximately 500 active wells within the Basin, approximately
300 of which produce less than 25 AF /yr. Groundwater production from approximately 200 large -
capacity or large - system wells operated by the 21 largest water retail utilities accounted for an estimated
• 97 percent of the total production.
MAMMdLg0CtQn 1 HMAQ06 OG-0618DG
1-11
SECTIONONE
Introduction
Total potable water pumping capacity of OCWD Basin utilities is about 700 cfs, and an additional 48 cfs
is planned "certain ". For Year 2025, it is assumed that for OCWD Basin utilities, three fourths of the
increase in potable demand. (from 2010 to 2025) will be met from increases in well capacity. There is no
increase projected for non -OCWD Basin utilities. The projected 2010 and 2025 summer pumping
capacities are shown on the right side of Table 1.3 -5.
UM IA'lN'a�otiSerJMn1 HM.tlwliOct-0B1SDG
1-12
n
U
•
•
�I
is
r
L_J
SECTIONONE
Figure 1.3.4.1 -1 Orange County Water District Basin .Areas
,°-� t 6a.�n •
v+ YorW Linea i_ Y
Central ry $uG -Bash i
8asm t
.J r \ +•tee
Abm Main Yt �7
i•
Basm 6as�n b
�.. •
sub-awn
0 IL
1
•�O
r
nu.,'
Introduction
Working closely with OCWD. MWDOC has developed a water balance model that incorporates OCWD's
operating policies in managing the Basin. It is used to project the groundwater production for each
producer in the Basin based on a range of assumptions provided by OCWD. Most of the assumptions
involve the future condition of replenishment supplies to the Basin, which will be discussed in detail in
the next subsection. The variables used to project the groundwater production are:
M %Werocl5e n 1 HM. dcCt -Oc- WSDG
1 -13
SECTIONONE introduction •
• Amount of Santa Ana River base flow;
• Amount of Santa Ana River storm flow;
• Amount of Basin incidental recharge;
• Relationship of basin storage and subsurface outflow;
• Basin percolation capacity;
• Basin well production capacity;
• Refill/maintain basin level approach;
• Replenishment purchases from imported sources; and
• Future annexation activities
1.3.4.2 OCWD Seawater Intrusion Barrier
OCWD operates several seawater intrusion barriers to prevent the intrusion of seawater into the
groundwater basin. OCWD operates the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier in Fountain Valley and
Huntington Beach, and co -funds operation of the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier in Seal Beach.
Currently OCWD is developing the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System, which will expand the
amount of purified wastewater that can be used for seawater intrusion barriers, and for groundwater
recharge into the basin.
1.3.4.3 OCWD Recharge Operations
OCWD has developed,an extensive system of facilities to divert and store Santa Ana River (SAR) water
to recharge water into the basin. OCWD currently encompasses over 229,000 acres of the lower
watershed of the SAR below Prado Dam in Orange County. OCWD owns and operates several diversion
structures and roughly 1,124acres of spreading facilities that facilitate the recharge process.
Additionally, OCWD implements an extensive water quality monitoring program to assess groundwater
quality through the groundwater basin.
The OCWD Groundwater Basin is recharged by multiple sources. These include artificial, i.e., man -made
systems, and incidental or natural recharge. One of OCWD's core activities is refilling or replenishing
the Basin to balance the removal of groundwater by pumping. Sources of recharge water include SAR
baseflow and storm flow, Santiago Creek Flows, imported supplies purchased from MET, supplemental
supplies from the upper SAR Watershed, and purified wastewater from recycled plants.
1.3.4.4 OCWD Prado Dam Activities and Prado Dam Conservation Pool
Prado Dam is located in Riverside County on the main stem of the SAR upstream of the Orange County
Groundwater Basin. The dam was constructed in 1941 to protect against flooding, such as occurred in
1938. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) operates the dam, and has long cooperated with OCWD to
facilitate groundwater recharge efforts below the dam, as long as the primary flood control benefits of the
x:W&=Zo W i HM.eocaonasuoc
1 -14
•
is
• SECTIONONE Introduction
project are not compromised. Operation of Prado Dam has been adjusted over the years to recognize the
secondary goal of conserving water for groundwater recharge.
In 1994, the ACOE adopted the Prado Dam and Reservoir Water Control Manual, which instituted the
creation of a conservation pool behind Prado Dam to augment OCWD's groundwater recharge operations.
Under the tightly controlled conditions of a 2006 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
ACOE, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and OCWD, the ACOE conserves stormwater on
ACOE and OCWD lands behind the dam on behalf of OCWD. Conserved water is subsequently released
for percolation downstream at a rate of approximately 500 cubic feet per second (cfs).
1.3.5 La Habra Groundwater Basin
Currently, the La Habra Basin is non - adjudicated and serves the City of La Habra. The long -term
extraction supply has been estimated at 4,500 AF /yr, however, historically the City's extraction rate is
approximately 1,074 AF /yr (averaged over the past 15 years), which is considerably less than the
potential yield. Thus, the La Habra Basin has not been identified to be in overdraft. There is some
interest by the local agencies to increase production out of the basin. Water quality issues with high TDS
and iron and manganese have created problems and likely require treatment for potable service.
1.3.6 San Juan Capistrano Groundwater Basin
• This groundwater basin underlies the San Juan Valley and several tributary valleys in southern Orange
County and is managed by the San Juan Basin Authority. The basin is bounded on the west by the Pacific
Ocean and otherwise by tertiary semi - permeable marine deposits. San Juan Creek drains the San Juan
Valley, and several other creeks drain valley tributaries to the San Juan. Average annual precipitation
ranges from I I to 15 inches. Thickness of the alluvium average about 65 feet and may reach more than
125 feet. Wells typically yield from 450 to 1,000 gpm. A study by NBS Lowry (1994) investigated and
modeled the groundwater basin for 1979 through 1990. They determined,a mean pumpage of 5,621
AF/yr and a mean subsurface inflow of 2,246 AF /yr. Average subsurface outflow to the ocean is
estimated to be about 800 AF /yr.
Recharge of the basin is from flow in San Juan Creek, Oso Creek, and Arroyo Trabuco and precipitation
to the valley floor. Water from springs flows directly from Hot Spring Canyon into San Juan Creek,
adding to recharge. Groundwater mineral content is variable in this basin with TDS increasing from
below 500 mg/L in the upper reaches of the valley to near 2,000 mg/L near the coast TDS content of
water from three public supply wells averages 760 mg/L and ranges from 430 mg/L to 1,250 mg/L.
Historical production from the basin has ranged from 2,000 to 5,000 AF over the years. In 2000, the
California State Water Resources Control Board granted a water rights permit of 9,227 AF /yr to San Juan
Basin Authority for diversion and use from the San Juan Basin. Member agencies of the San Juan Basin
Authority are: City of San Juan Capistrano, Moulton Niguel Water District, Santa Margarita Water
District, and South Coast Water District. San Juan Basin Authority completed Phase I of the San Juan
Basin Desalter Project in December 2004 at a capacity of 4,900 acre -feet per year. Depending on the
condition of the basin after the implementation of the San Juan Basin Groundwater Management and
• Facility Plan, future expansion of the production may be possible. Another desalter project is currently
tm M?WeiodiecEOn l HMAaeb-00-061SDG
1 -15
SECTIONONE Inyedrrlciion •
under construction by South Coast Water District When complete, the project is expected to extract up
to 2,000 AF/yr.
1.4 PARTICIPATING WASTEWATER JURISDICTIONS
For wastewater collection and treatment in Orange County, there are two regional agencies that are
responsible for the trunk line collection, treatment, biosolids management, and ocean outfalls for treated
wastewater disposal. These agencies are the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which covers
north and central Orange County, and the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA), which
covers south Orange County. Following are descriptions of these agencies.
1.4.1 Orange County Sanitation District Facilities and History
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) began operations in 1954, replacing the Orange County Joint
Outfall Sewer. Formed under the County Sanitation District Act of 1923, OCDS was comprised of nine
revenue areas until 1998, when it consolidated into a single district. Today, OCSD is the third largest
wastewater discharger in the western United States, providing sewer service for 23 cities and the
unincorporated areas of north and central Orange County. Its capital facilities include 12 regional trunk
lines, two treatment plants, two discharge outfalls and two emergency weir outlets. OCSD operates and
maintains approximately 400 miles of sewer lines.
OCSD's formation was not only to address the need for sewage collection, treatment and disposal •
facilities for a growing Orange County. Its formation also facilitated public financing for sewer systems in
Orange County, which the previous organization was unable to accomplish. A bond election in 1949
allowed OCSD to buy treatment and disposal facilities serving the cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana,
Fullerton, and Orange, as well as the sanitary districts in Placentia, Buena Park, La Habra and Garden
Grove. The bond election also financed the beginning of a network of trunk sewer systems throughout
Orange County. OCSD formally took control of sewer management in 1954 when Plant No. 2 and Ocean
Outfall No. 1 were constructed. Ocean Outfall No. 2 was subsequently constructed in the 1970's.
1.4.1.1 OCSD Capital Facilities
OCSD manages its facilities through the preparation and implementation of wastewater master plans.
These plans outline the improvements to collection, treatment and disposal facilities required to manage
flows over a selected planning horizon.
In October 1999, the District adopted a new strategic plan. The planning effort defined the District's
goals, responsibilities, and requirements over the next twenty years, including projections through the
assumed "build -out" of the District's service area to the year 2050. Critical factors such as population
growth, new construction, and the volume of wastewater delivered to the treatment plants and viable
water conservation and reclamation programs have been evaluated.
In June 2002, the District completed the Interim Strategic Plan Update (ISPU), which further updated
these critical factors and developed revised cost estimates and user fee projections for upgrading the •
M:1WaoclSeclbn 7 HM.tloC6-0d-0Bl4OG
1 -16
0
SECTIONONE Introduction
District's level of treatment to secondary standards. On July 17, 2002, after reviewing the Interim
Strategic Plan, updated treatment alternatives, ocean monitoring data, public input, regulatory issues, and
financial considerations, the Board of Directors made the decision to upgrade treatment to meet secondary
treatment standards.
Figure 1.4.1.1 -1 shows the OCSD service area. OCSD serves more than 87 percent of the population in
Orange County, representing over 23 million.people. It has been estimated that OCSD will be serving a
population of over 2.8 million people in 2020. OCSD provides sewer service for over 210,000 acres
within Orange County (approximately 35 percent of the county's land area). Land use in the OCSD
service area consists of a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and open space
categories. The south and west portions of the OCSD area are largely developed, while the north and east
portions are less developed.
1.4.1.2 Overview of Existing OCSD System
The OCSD sewer system collects wastewater through an extensive system of regional pipelines, pump
stations and force mains, with diversions installed between trunk sewer systems. Wastewater is treated at
two treatment facilities, and an outfall system is available for ocean disposal of treated wastewater. The
treatment plants currently operate under a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board as
established in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit No. CA0110604 that
• permits the discharge of treated wastewater through an ocean outfall system to the Pacific Ocean.
• M:Vftr ea6on i aMAo&&.0 [4)MMi
1-17
0
SECTIONONE landICUMN •
Figure 1.4.1.1 -1 Orange County Sanitation District Service Area
VW
YORMOMA
P A EMM
.0 IMLYA BUErU -- j•
AM♦MEnA � �
LOG GIANtON
4UNIl DS 1 ..
1 SEAL SELEF .
M
\ MLMYiTICTOM • � _.•
COS TA MESA :.♦ -v
Reclamation ! _ -
PI2n1 No 1 -t IRVINE
Treatment W"O*T SEA
Plant No 2
CA
- O�s4e Ccamv vnleu. Dnv:x. ICCJDI
❑ 1T. 2Aft
1.4.1.3 OCSD Trunk Sewer Systems
OCSD owns. operates, and maintains twelve trunk sewer systems that are located throughout the service
area. The trunk systems include approximately 400 miles of sewer pipes and force mains, ranging in size
from 12 to 120 inches in diameter (interplant), as well as twenty pump stations. The trunk sewer system
also includes nine interconnections (to convey flow between main trunk systems) and 87 diversion
UMW Man cuawm 1 Mm aots -On a6l5oG •
1 -18
0 SECTIONONE mtrouuction
structures (to convey flow between sewer pipes within a main trunk system). The trunk sewer systems are
currently conveying approximately 240 million gallons per day (mgd); or with a flow split of
approximately 150 mgd to Plant No. I and approximately 90 mgd to Plant No. 2. This split reflects that a
portion of the raw wastewater tributary to Plant No. I is diverted to Plant No. 2 via a 120 -inch interplant
pipeline.
1.4.1.4 OCSD Treatment Plant System
OCSD has two wastewater treatment plans. Plant No. I is located in the City of Fountain Valley,
approximately four miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Influent
wastewater entering Plant No. I passes through the metering structure, mechanical bar screens,. grit
chambers and the primary clarifiers, before undergoing the activated sludge process. The activated sludge
process consists of aeration basins and secondary clarifiers. Activated sludge effluent can be diverted to
OCWD for tertiary treatment before reuse. The remainder of the activated sludge effluent flows through
the interplant line to Plant No. 2 where it's either used as plant water or it goes to the outfall booster pump
and directly to the ocean outfall for final disposal. Plant No. 2 is located in the City of Huntington Beach,
adjacent to the Santa Ana River and east of the Pacific Coast Highway. Untreated wastewater entering
Plant No. 2 passes through magnetic flow meters, mechanical bar screens and grit removal chambers.
Flow then passes through the primary clarifiers before undergoing secondary treatment via an oxygen -
activated sludge process. Some of OCSD's primary - treated effluent does not undergo secondary
• treatment. However, both primary- and secondary- treated effluent from Plant Nos. I and 2 are blended
together before being release into the ocean outfall system.
•
Interconnections exist between Plant Nos. I and 2. These interconnections include a digester gas pipeline,
communications cables, Plant No. I effluent lines to the Ocean Outfall Booster Station and a raw
wastewater interplant pipeline. Solids treatment at both Plant No. I and 2 includes dissolved air
floatation thickening of waste activated sludge, anaerobic sludge digestion and belt press dewatering.
Both plants also have facilities for odor control, chemical addition and digester gas utilization for
electrical generation.
1.4.1.5 OCSD Ocean Outfall System
The ocean outfall system includes three discharge structures. The primary ocean outfall ( Outfall No. 2)
was put in service in 1971 and is approximately 27,400 feet long including a 6,000 -foot diffuser section.
The primary outfall is 120 inches in diameter and discharges treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, at
a depth of approximately 200 feet some four and a half miles offshore. The primary outfall has a capacity
of approximately 480 mgd. The emergency outfall ( Outfall No.l), originally constructed in 1954 and
modified in 1965, is approximately 7,000 feet long, including a 1,000 -foot diffuser section. The
emergency outfall is 78 inches in diameter and is located at a depth of approximately 65 feet, a mile and a
half offshore. The emergency outfall has a capacity of approximately 245 mgd. OCSD's NPDES permit
specifies that this outfall can be used for emergencies only. The Santa Ana River emergency overflow
weirs discharge directly to the Santa Ana River, and are also limited for emergency use only.
M:IYJem ^ on1 HM.tlai6Od-0flLSDG
1 -19
SECTIONONE introduction •.
1.4.1.6 OCSD Levels of Service
The levels of service provided by OCSD will increase significantly in the future, requiring nearly $3
billion in new capital assets and millions in increased maintenance and operations costs over the next
seven years.
One area where OCSD's levels of service will increase significantly is the quality of effluent that is
provided to OCWD for reclamation or discharged into the ocean. OCSD is also considering further
reduction in the offsite odors from its treatment plants, and reducing its emissions of air toxics. OCSD's
levels of service will also improve in the area of biosolids management.
1.4.1.7 Communities Included within OCSD's Service Area
Anaheim
Brea
Buena Park
Cypress
Fountain Valley
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine
La Habra
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Newport Beach
Orange
Placentia
Santa Ana
Seal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
Villa Park
Yorba Linda
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Midway City Sanitary District
Irvine Ranch Water District
Unincorporated areas near Anaheim Hills
r1
U
•
ms Mwtrocvsaemn i HA1.dOOZ-0G %MG
1 -20
0 SECTIONONE landucdon
1.4.2 South Orange County Wastewater Authority ( SOCWA)
The mission of the South Orange County Wastewater Authority ( SOCWA) is to collect, treat, beneficially
reuse, and dispose of wastewater and biosolids in an effective and economical manner that respects the
environment, maintains the public's health and meets or exceeds all local, state and federal regulations to the
mutual benefit of SOCWA's ten member agencies and the general public in South Orange County. SOCWA
provides, at a minimum, full secondary treatment at all of its regional wastewater facilities, and also has active
water recycling, industrial waste (pretreatment), biosolids management and ocean/shoreline monitoring
programs to meet the needs of its members and the requirements of the applicable National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. In order to strike this balance, SOCWA manages a series of
ongoing environmental programs, each designed to play an important role in fulfilling the Agency's mission.
Programs related to Hazard Mitigation Planning include acquiring, constructing, maintaining, repairing,
managing, operating and controlling facilities for the collection, transmission, treatment and disposal of
wastewater and biosolids, the reclamation and reuse of wastewater for beneficial purposes, and the production,
transmission, storage and distribution of non - domestic water.
SOCWA was created on July 1, 2001 as a Joint Powers Authority with no taxing authority (Joint Powers
Authority Signatories listed below). SOCWA is the legal successor to the Aliso Water Management Agency
(AWMA) (1972), South East Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA) (1970) and South Orange County
• Reclamation Authority ( SOCRA) (1991). Figure 1.4.2 -1 shows the service area and the major facilities.
1.4.2.1 SOCWA Joint Powers Member Agencies
City of Laguna Beach (CLB)
City of San Clements (CSC)
City of San Juan Capistrano (CSJC)
El Toro Water District (ETWD)
Emerald Bay Service District (EBSD)
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD)
Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD)
Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD)
South Coast Water District (SCWD)
Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD)
r1
LJ
MdVV.MGISectlo0 l HM.dod6-0a60ffi5DG
21
0 0
SECTIONONE introduction
Figure 1.4.2 -1
SOCWA Regional Wastewater System
. ;...f
xr.. _ frrefemf•[
..- _••KEY NAPA .-
_ SoCWA
fff
wJ*n cu-x-
�
/ wtF fr6w!'1 -
�I
♦
r
r� . rr.M•+
r
i
env
f
♦- a ... w...
`_ _ f'
� �r
� �
I
1
�«
VT
J
'M11'
. ;...f
xr.. _ frrefemf•[
..- _••KEY NAPA .-
_ SoCWA
M'.\WaOCZMOn 1 MM bJCSCQ-pi44
22
E
u
n
u
fff
M'.\WaOCZMOn 1 MM bJCSCQ-pi44
22
E
u
n
u
• SECTIONONE Introduction
1.4.2.2 Communities Included within SOCWA
Aliso Viejo
Coto de Caza
Dana Point
Emerald Bay
Ladera
Laguna Beach
Laguna Hills
Laguna Niguel
Laguna Woods
Lake Forest
Las Flores
Mission Viejo
Rancho Santa Margarita
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
Talega
Trabuco Canyon
• 1.4.2.4 SOCWA Treatment Pla
Regional Treatment Plant (RTP)
Jay B. Latham (JBL)
Coastal Treatment Plant (CTP)
3A Plant (3A)
nts Operated
12.0 mgd
13.0 mgd
6.7 mgd
6.0 mgd
SOCWA also operates the Effluent Transmission Main (ETM) and the Aliso Creek and San Juan Creek Ocean
Outfalls. The City of Laguna Beach operates the North Coast Interceptor (NCI) on a contract basis on behalf
of SOCWA. MNWD operates the Alicia Parkway Pump Station on behalf of SOCWA, and the City of San
Clemente operates the San Clemente Land Outfall.
1.4.2.5 SOCWA Ocean Outfall System
The ocean outfall system includes two discharge structures. The Aliso Creek Outfall was put in service in 1978
and is approximately 7,900 feet offshore in a SW direction from the mouth of Aliso Creek. This outfall has a
capacity of approximately 50 mgd, but currently discharges approximately 21 mgd. The outfall suffered
damage in 1992 from coastal storms and was repaired in 1993. The second outfall is the San Juan Creek
Outfall built in 1978. It is 10,550 feet offshore in a SW direction from Doheny Beach at San Juan Creek. This
outfall has a design capacity of 24 mgd gravity flow and an additional 80 mgd pumped flow. Its current Flow
rate is 19.1 mgd.
•
MA%Wmd,% tion 1 HM.CU.°,0d-0MC G
23
SECTIONONE Innduction •
Table 1.3,3
Orange County Potable Water Demands and Supplies, Current/Future
1. MWDOCs OC -WJN model datod D=2000 is= econometric model tha used demographics prepared by Ne C=ter fer Demagwhic R, ch CSUF. The OC-MAIN
model pmjec d m 5-yr intervals f mm 2005 dwugh 2020. MWOOC pmjmed 2025 emnbm by strsi& -hne eAe n=rrom the moders 2015 =d 2020 aumbers.
M.AVW=%Sac w 1 HMAWW)d-0 GDr
24
•
•
2005
2025
% Inc
Notes
-Population millions
3.1
3.7
19%
2005 actual; projections per CDR, CSUF
ACRE -FEET
a. Water demand before WUE
735,000
936,000
27%
Based on OC -MAIN , rounded
b. Less WUE
58,000
115,000
27%
Based on OGMAIN rounded
a — b = Consumptive Water
6772000
8212000
21%
demand
c. Less Recycling.& Non-
50,000
75,000
50%
Recycled & Non - Domestic Projections per
domestic supply
agencies' responses to MWDOC 5 -yr. Water
Demand survey Spring `05. If the achieved
a — b - c = Consumptive
6272000
7462000
19%
Recycled & Non - Domestic supplies are less
Demand for Potable Water
than projected, potable water demand will
increase.
d. OCWD Basin pumping
3502000
4502000
29%
Projection per agencies' responses to survey
Spring `05, with assumed BPP of 75 %. If
Santa Ana River capture is limited, future
basin Pumping would be less than shown.
e. Less Import. Replenishment
602000
602000
0%
OC WD's continued purchase of
replenishment water in future assumes
continued availability from MET; otherwise
pumping volume would decrease.
d —e = OCWD Basin pumping,
2902000
3902000
34%
Increase shown results from GWRS
non - imported source water only
production of 72,000 af/yr and increased
capture of Santa Ana River water.
f. Non -OCWD Basin potable
22000
92000
350%
Increase is from San Juan (4,800 af/yr), and
water wells
Capistrano Beach Desalters (1,300 af/yr)
and others.
g. Cal Domestic supply to Brea
132000
132000
0%
& La Habra
h. Anaheim WTP
12 500
14 500
16%
i. Serrano WTP
22500
32000
20%
'. Trabuco WTP
3,000
42000
33%
k. Ocean Water Desal Plant
252000
n/a
If ocean desal production is less than shown,
demand on Met would increase.
a — b — c - d — e — f— g - h — j - k
3042000
2872500
-5%
By subtraction. Does not include water for
= Met treated full service
replenishment of OCWD Basin.
water
Sum of Potable Supplies
627,000
7462000
19%
CFS
Annual average demand rate
870
12030
18%
Potable water only, rounded
Peak mo. demand rate @ 1.35
1 170 j
1,390
19°x6
Potable water only, rounded
1. MWDOCs OC -WJN model datod D=2000 is= econometric model tha used demographics prepared by Ne C=ter fer Demagwhic R, ch CSUF. The OC-MAIN
model pmjec d m 5-yr intervals f mm 2005 dwugh 2020. MWOOC pmjmed 2025 emnbm by strsi& -hne eAe n=rrom the moders 2015 =d 2020 aumbers.
M.AVW=%Sac w 1 HMAWW)d-0 GDr
24
•
•
r�
LJ
r�
L_J
•
SECTIONONE
Table 1.3 -4
Existing Potable Water Storage Volume and Portion Available for Emergency
introduction
Sub-
Region
Retail Water Agency
U A
O 44
a,
d
o5
w
F d
w C4
re
rA
��
w A_
rn C
C m>
C7 C4
g
E
d W
d
C7
as
w
d W
a
m
d c4
Q
v,
MG
Brea/
Brea
19.6
19.6
0.97
1 19
1 67
30%
20
39
LaHabra
La Habra
9.8
9.8
.97
9
17
30%
5
15
Subtotal Brea/La Habra
29.3
29.3
28
84
25
54
Anaheim
29
33%
9
9
Buena Park
20
30%
6
6
East Orange CWD
1.8
30%
.5
.5
Fountain Valley
10
30%
3
3
Fullerton
19.6
19.6
.97
19
85
30%
26
44
Garden Grove
53
30%
16
16
Golden State -East OC
4
30%
1
1
Golden State Plac./YL
3
30%
1
1
Golden State West OC
5
30%
1
1
Huntington Beach
55
30%
43
43
Irvine Ranch WD
143
30%
43
43
OCWD
La Palma
4.5
30%
8
8
Basin
Mesa Consol. WD
28
30%
8
8
Newport Beach
194
70%
136
136
Orange
43
30%
13
13
O Park Acres
1
30%
0
0
Santa Ana
49
30%
15
15
Seal Beach
7
30%
2
2
Serrano WD
9
30%
3
3
Tustin
12
30%
4
4
Westminster
16
30%
12
12
Yorba Linda WD
41
30%
12
12
Subtotal Basin
20
20
1
19
322
341
El Toro WD
124.5
124.5
.97 1
121
12
30%
4
124
Laguna Bch CWD
34
50%
17
17
Moulton Niguel
13.0
2.4
15.4
.93
72
65%
47
61
South
San Clemente
29
7
35.9
.7
J22
30%
7
32
OC
San Juan Capo
.51
.5
.7
12
30%
4
4.0
Santa Margarita WD
137.5
137.5
.97
84
30%
25
159
South Coast WD
13
12.6
.70
9
22
30%
7
15
SDCWA San.Onofre
3.7
5
8.7
.70
6
30%
6
Trabuco CanyonWD
10
30%
3
3
Subtotal South County
275
48
12
335
309
112
421
Year 2005 atomge vola mlomd to MWDOC.
Sim nrvoluma ofEOCWD Wholesale system reaervails(about IS mg) is not kn .
M1WwoolSecGan 1 HMAO -Od466DO
25
0
SECTIONONE
Table 1.3 -5
Potable Well Water Production Capacity to Year 2025 by Producer
•
Introductlon
Sub-
Region
Retail Water
Agency
Historic
Peak
Month
Pumping
Exist.
Summer
Pumping
Ca acitv(1)
Certain O
Projects
Additional
capacity
2010
Summer
Pumping
Capacity
Increase
with 13)
Demand
2025
Summer
Pumping
Capacity
AF
cfs .
Brea/
Brea
LaHabra
La Habra
130
2.2
2.2
22
Subtotal
2.2
2.2
2.2
Anaheim
6,481
107.4
5.0
112.4
14.4
126.9
Buena Park
1,415
23.5
5.0
28.5
10.4
38.8
East Orange CWD
164
2.7
2.7
0.0
2.8
Fountain Valley
1,255
20.8
20.8
3.6
24.4
Fullerton
2,530
41.9
41.9
3.0
44.9
Garden Grove
3,766
62.4
5.0
67.4
0.8
68.2
Golden State -East
209
3.5
1 3.5
0.3
3.7
Gold. State- Plac.: YL
497
8.2
8.2
0.6
8.9
Gold. State -West OC
1,451
24.1
5.0
29.1
2.4
31.5
Huntington Beach
2,445
40.5
40.5
0.1
40.6
Irvine Ranch WD
5,213
90.8
7.7
98.5
32.3
130.8
OCWD
La Palma
284
4.7
4.7
6.7
11.4
Basin
Mesa Consol. WD
1,857
30.8
30.8
0.3
31.1
Newport Beach
1,455
24.1
24.1
2.3
26.4
Orange
3,203
1 53.1
53.1
0.6
53.7
Orange Park Acres
106
1 1.8
1.8
2.4
4.2
Santa Ana
5,117
84.8
10.0
94.8
0.0
94.9
Seal Beach
440
7.3
7.3
0.0
7.3
Serrano WD
339
5.6
5.6
0.1
5.7
Tustin
1,147
19.0
19.0
1.5
20.5
Westminster
1,396
23.1
5.0
281
3.3
31.4
Yorba Linda WD
1,398
23.2
5.0
28.2
1.2
29.4
Subtotal Basin
703:4
47.7
751.4
86.3
837.4
El Toro WD
Emerald Bay SD
Laguna Bch CWD
South
Moulton Niguel
OC
San Clemente
142
0.8
0.8
San Juan Ca o
234
3.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
Santa Margarita WD
41
0.7
0,7
0.7
South Coast WD
1.8
1.8
1.8
Trabuco Canyon WD
174
2.0
2.0
Subtotal South County
7.4
9.8
13.3
0
10.5
TOTAL Orange County
712.9 1
57.4 1
766.5
86.3
850.0
1. S.: MWDOCs records ofmv imum monthly pumping however, the numbers have been adjusted down ifpmmpmg cep.,ity has decreased sin« the pumping wns
secmdei. iRWD's number is DRWF "Clear" 80 efs (conservative) plus DATS 10 efs plus Herding Canyon O.8 cfs.
2. Addimmal " certain" groundwater mojem an, 8 conjunctive use wens (® 50 efs), the IR WD Neither (T7 .1s) and the S. Juan Decalter (8.0 efs).
3. Basin agmaes assumed to increase well capacity to match 75S ofau msise m potable water demand.
M:IWemclBemion 1 HM.docYrOCt-0B150G
26
0
LJ
1, 11
u
0
U
SECTIONTWO
MULTI- IURMICT10NK MICIPAT101N
SECTION 2. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION
2.1 LIST OF PARTICIPATING WATER DISTRICTS AND CITY PUBLIC
UTILITIES
Descriptions of each participating Water and Wastewater Utility (PWU) are provided below. This
section is organized first by utilities that have management responsibilities that extend to several
water districts or city utilities including: Municipal Water District of Orange County, Orange
County Water District, Orange County Sanitation District, and South Orange County Wastewater
Authority. Participating water and wastewater utilities are then presented in. alphabetical order,
including: City of Buena Park, El Tao Water District, City of Garden Grove , City of La Habra, Laguna
Beach County Water District, Mesa Consolidated Water District, Moulton Niguel Water District, City of
Newport Beach, qty of Orange, Santa Margarita Water District, Serrano Water District South Coast
Water District. Trabuco Canyon Water District, City of Tustin, City of Westminster and` Yorba Linda
Water District.
2.1.1 Municipal Water District of Orange County (Service Population: 2.3 Million) `
MWDOC's Mission Statement is to provide reliable, high -quality water supplies from MET and
other sources -to meet present and future needs, at an equitable and economical cost for all Orange
County, and to promote water use efficiency.
MWDOC is a regional water wholesalr and resource planning utility, managing all of Orange
County's imported water supply with -the exception of water imported to the cities of Anaheim,
Fullerton, and Santa Ana. MWDOC serves more than 2.3 million residents in a 600 - square -mile
service area (see Figure 2 -2). Its commitment is to ensure water reliability for the communities it
serves. To that end, MWDOC focuses on sound planning and appropriate investments in water
supply, regional delivery infrastructure and emergency preparedness.
As a regional wholesaler, MWDOC's most significant roles are broadly applicable. to all of its
member utilities. A key, goo of MWDOC is to provide services and programs that are broad;
reaching that the retail utilities cannot reasonably provide as single entities.
MWDOC is governed by an elected seven -member Board of Directors, each board member
representing a specific area of the County. Each director is elected to a four -year term by voters
who reside within one of the seven divisions within the MWDOC service area.
• 2 -1
E
SECTIONTWO MULTI - JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATIOIN
Figure 2 -2:
MWDOC's Service Area and Member Agencies
F iYYAen
A AAA
!YY_AAVAYY
MMrt0A1�v
—! MWnOC MAw�Ca A7^r -V
' OIwAR,
O Ertl OrwVw Cwnly WaM DKW (Nho S )
Q 0MP CW My M/W DlWa
kM MWDOC DLL O.Wft RWiW WNW, APlKY uwKwrT w t
s
— Frotwey w Tdwar
___ prnpoAep TOlwel o �» :r r
MWDOC Service Area
and Member Agencies i
GnOMYMW VA =MA�wM 40exP11
PMCn OPSAtir44 AN M9'FMwJ a+pa�wmpslO.p'MMK Ypi MLLS
0
•
I = 2 -2 •
• SECTIANTWO muni- jumninoNu FABTICIPnom
2.1.2 Orange County Water District (Service Population. 2.3 million)
The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the large groundwater basin that provides
reliable, high - quality groundwater to 20 cities.and water utilities and their 2.3 million customers.
OCWD was formed in 1933 by a special act of the California. Legislature [Water Code App §40-1
et seq.], which authorized OCWD to represent water users and landowners in litigation (with
upstream uses) and empowered OCWD to protect the water supply and protect the groundwater
basin. The mission of OCWD is to provide local water retailers with a reliable, adequate, high -
quality water supply at the lowest reasonable cost in an environmentally responsible manner.
With years of proper planning and investment, OCWD has more than doubled the output of the
groundwater basin
The groundwater basin, which underlies north and central Orange County, provides between
2/3rds and 3 /4ths of the water needed in that area; imported water meets the balance of the water
demand. Groundwater is pumped by water utilities before being delivered to customers.
Groundwater is a great value at approximately one-half the cast of imported water. OCWD
purchases through MWDOC some imported. water supplies for recharge operations and for
operating and maintaining the seawater intrusion barrier.
Today, OCWD is managed by a ten - member Board of Directors, with three appointed from the
cities of Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana, and the remainder of the Board publicly elected from
geographic divisions within the OCWD service area.
• OCWD is known internationally for its "tradition of innovation' OCWD built the fast advanced
wastewater purification plant to provide water to prevent seawater intrusion into Orange County's
groundwater basin Today, OCWD and OCSD are partners in the world's largest advanced
wastewater purification project, called the Groundwater Replenishment.System that will provide
water to 144,000 families each year beginning in 2007.
2.1.3 Orange County Sanitation District {Service Population: 23 million)
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for safely collecting, treating, and
disposing wastewater (sewage) and industrial waste in central and northwest Orange County..
Owning 400 miles of wastewater pipeline, OCSD serves 2.3 million residents in 21 cities, three
special districts and the unincorporated areas within north and central Orange County.
The District is governed by a board of 25 individuals; 24 board members are elected officials
appointed by the cities and special districts served, and one. is a representative from the Orange
County Board of Supervisors.
OCSD brats approximately 250 million gallons of wastewater each day and releases it into the
ocean five miles from shore and approximately 200 feet below the surface. The one - mile -long
diffuser section on the five -mile ocean outfall contains 503 portholes through which treated
wastewater are slowly released Up to seven million gallons of treated wastewater is reclaimed
each day for use by the Orange County Water District in landscape irrigation and injection into
the seawater intrusion barrier along the coast.
• UM 2 -3
SECTIONTWO MULTI -JURISDICTIONALPARTICIPATION •
In addition to its primary role of managing wastewater for north and central Orange County,
OCSD is also concerned about ocean water quality and protecting the coastline from urban runoff
contamination This is why plans have been made to take diverted sewer water (and-its various
urban contaminants) from storm drains and treat it before releasing it to the ocean. Currently,
OCSD recycles all biosolids produced for beneficial use by the agricultural industry and runs an
award - winning ocean monitoring program that evaluates water quality, sediment quality and sea
life.
2i.4 South orange County Wastewater Authority (Service Population: 500,000)
The South Orange County Wastewater Authority ( SOCWA) was created July 1, 2001 as a Joint
Powers Authority. SOCWA was formed under and pursuant to Governmem Code Section 6500
and is the legal successor to the Aliso Water Management Utility, the South East Regional
Reclamation Authority and the South Orange County Reclamation Authority. SOCWA is
comprised of 10 member utilities including the City of Laguna Beach, City of San Clemente, City
of San Juan Capistrano, El Toro Water District, Emerald Bay Service District, Irvine Ranch
Water District, Moulton Niguel Water District, Santa Margarita Water. District; South Coast
Water District and Trabuco Canyon Water District. SOCWA provides wastewater treatment,
effluent and. biosolids disposal, and water recycling at regional facilities in the. southern part of
Orange Couty.
SOCWA is governed by a Board of Directors. As members of SOCWA's Board of Directors
(one Director from each Member Agency) they each balance the interests of their own respective •
District or City while continuing the purpose and mission of SOCWA's Project Committees.
2A.5 City of Buena Park (Service Population: 84,300)
The City of Buena Park (Buena Park) was incorporated in 1953; Buena Park is situated in central
Orange County, with a laud area of 10:3 square miles serviced by the City's water utility. Buena
Park is a public municipality and is governed by an elected City Council consisting of a mayor
and four councilpersons. The cities of La Mirada, Fullerton, Anaheim, La Palma, and Cypress
bound Buena Park.
Buena Park has a water system with three pressure zones. The water system consists of seven
active wells with one new well under construction in 2006, one 20 million gallon reservoir, one
booster pump station and numerous pressure reducing stations. In addition, there are four
imported water supply connections with MET. Water supply is transported to approximately
84,300 consumers through 216 miles of pipeline and approximately 19,550 service connections.
Groundwater is the primary source of water for Buena Park, and historically has accounted for
about 58 percent of total water supply. Groundwater is drawn from seven.municipal wells that are
drilled down to about 1000 feet into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The second source
of water is imported water from MET through MWDOC:
I 24 •
• SECTIONTWO MULTI= IUNISDICTIONU M719IPA1101N
2.1.6 El Toro Water District (Service Population: 51,000)
The El Toro Water District (ETWD) was formed in September 1960 under provisions of the
California Water District.Law (Division 13, Section 34000 et seq. of the Water Code of the State
on California). The District is governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors consisting of
five Board Members. The Board of Directors establishes District policies and Rules and
Regulations. The District's service area, which is nearly completely developed, includes 5,350
acres in South Orange County. ETWD is bordered by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) to
the north, the Laguna Beach County Water District (LBCWD) to the west, the Moulton Miguel
Water District "JWD) to the west and south, and the Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD)
to the south and east. The District also shares a small border with Tmbuco Canyon Water District
(TCWD) in the northern part of the District The District provides water and sewer service to
over 51,000 customers in the cities of Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo
attd Aliso Viejo.
ETWD's responsibilities as authorized by the California Water District Law are:
• Treatment and distribution of potable water for domestic consumption, irrigation and.fire
protection
• Collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater.
• Treatment and,distribution of recycled water.
. ` All of the District's domestic water demands are met from the supply imported from MET
through MWDOC. ETWD receives imported (potable) water from MET via the Allen -
McColloch Pipeline (AMP) and the East Orange County Feeder #2 (EOCF #2). .
2.1.7 City of Garden Grove (Service Population: 171,042)
The.City of Garden Grove (Garden Grove), recognizing the importance of the groundwater basin
underlying the City, established a Municipal Water Department in 1958. The Department is the
principle water retailer within the boundaries of Garden Grove. Imported water is purchased by
Garden Grove from MET through MWDOC to alleviate over depletion of the groundwater basin.
The percentage of import to well water changes periodically and is dependent upon OCWD
groundwater projections.
Garden Grove has 12 wells strategically located throughout the City, with a pumping capacity of
over 41,000 gallons per minute. In 1993, the sale of water bonds allowed the City to take on
many capital improvement projects to provide a safe and abundant water supply for the citizens
of Garden Grove. The improvements included building a new water supply well, two new
reservoirs, and upgrades to the City's import water connections and water distribution system
Careful planning and management of utility services ensures that a reliable source of potable
water is readily available to the City's water users, now at a population of 171,042.
The Water Services Division consists of a professional staff responsible for ongoing operation,
maintenance, repair and improvements to the City's water system. Garden Grove is governed by a
U 2_5.
SECTIONTWO MULTI IURISUICTIONAL MTICIPATIOIN
five member council. Each position is an elected position, including the position of mayor.
Revenue is collected through bi- monthly water rates. Since the LAFCO Reorganization No. 141,
City staff has also been responsible for the operation and maintenance of 380 miles of sewer
lines, and three lift stations located throughout the City.
2.1.8 City of La Habra (Service Population: 58,974)
The City of La Habra (La Habra) was incorporated under general law on January 20, 1925, with a
population of 3,000. Today, La Habra is a bedroom community located in northern Orange
County with a population of nearly 62,000 residents in 7.3 square miles. La Habra operates under
a `five member Council/Manager form of government who also act as the board of the
Water/Sewer Division
La Habra possesses 125 miles of all gravity sewer pipelines with a replacement cost of
$145,000,000 and 143 miles of water pipeline with a replacement cost of $110,000,000. There
are three water storage tanks, one water well, six Booster stations, 57 pressure reducing valves
and 21 pressure zones. La Habra receives water from MET through MWDOC and from
California Domestic Water Company prepared from the San Gabriel Groundwater Basin.
2.1.9 Laguna Beach County Water District (25,000)
Laguna Beach County Water District (Laguna Beach) is well known as a unique beach
community and artist's colony. The District provides water services to 25,000 people within an
8.5 square mile area, including portions of the City of Laguna Beach, a portion. of Crystal Cove
State: Park and the community of Emerald Bay. Laguna Beach serves: approximately 4,500 acre
feet of water annually to its 8,450 customers., There are 22 water storage reservoirs with total
storage capacity of 33.5 million gallons. Laguna Beach staff operate and maintain 36 pumps in 14
pumping stations and 135 miles of distribution pipelines ranging in diameter from 4 to 16 inches.
The area's sewer and storm drain services are managed by the Water Quality Department of the
City of Laguna Beach The department is organized into two divisions: Wastewater and Water
Quality. Wastewater is responsible for mairnwi_ ning 95 miles of sewer lines, 26 pump stations and
the four -mile North Coast Uerceptor that transmits sewage to the regional treatment plant
operated by SOCWA. Water Quality is a new division formed to implement the water quality
permit approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2002. The new
permit identifies multiple tasks cities and counties must complete to comply with the permit and
reduce water pollution.
2.1.10 Mesa Consolidated Water District (Service Population: Over 100,000)
Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa) is a public utility serving more than 100,000 . users
within an 18 square-mile area, which includes Costa Mesa, part of Newport. Beach and the John
Wayne Airport. Mesa commenced operations on January 1, 1960 by acquiring the assets and
obligations and assuming the responsibility of consolidating the City of Costa Mesa's Water
Department, Fairview County Water District, Newport Heights Irrigation District and Newport
Mesa County Water District. Mesa set a precedent with this merger as the first California water
utility to consolidate two or more water utilities and assume both their assets and debts. Mesa is
tw 1 2-6
.0
• SECTIOHTWQ MULT149RIS01CTIONAL PARTICIPODIR
governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors comprised of five directors. The Board of
Directors establishes the water rates. Mesa strives to provide its customers with 100 percent
groundwater, which is pumped from Orange County's natural groundwater basin via nine wells.
Since its formation in 1960, Mesa's .goal has been to produce the highest quality drinking water
for all of our customers.
2.1.11 Moulton Niguel, Water District (Service Population: over 160,000)
Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) was formed in November 1960 under provisions of the
California Water District Law, Division 13 of the Water Code of.the State of California. The
District, is governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors comprised of seven directors. The
Board.of Directors establishes the water and sewer rates. MNWD is located in the southern
portion of the County of Orange and provides water and sewer service to over 160,000 customers.
The District is almost entirely developed and encompasses almost all of the cities of Aliso Viejo,
Laguna Niguel,. Laguna Hills, about half of the city of Mission Viejo, and a portion of Dana
Point. All of the potable water is imported water from MET through MWDOC and
approximately 20% of the Districts demand is supplied by recycled water serving landscape
.irrigation services.
2.1.12 City of Newport Beach (Service Population: 83;120)
The, City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach) was established in 1906 and is governed by a
CounciliManager form of government. The City's present population is 83,120 .for permanent
residents and peaks at approximately 100,000 seasonally. The City's Unlitles;Department is
responsible for providing water service, wastewater collection,.. oil and gas production, electrical
services, and street lights to the citizens of Newport Beach. All city rates for services are set by
Municipal Ordinance.
Newport Beach has two sources of water., groundwater pumped from four wells in Fountain
Valley and imported water from. MET via MWDOC. At this time, Newport Beach pumps 69
percent of its water from wells and imports the remaining 31percent. In the next five years
Newport Beach expects those percentages to adjust to 75/25 percent pumped and imported water,
respectively.
2.1.13 City of Orange (Service Population: 138,000)
The City of Orange is located in northern Orange County, serving an area of 23.6 square miles.
The City of Orange's water system was established in October 1904 serving a population of 1,216
people. Since then, the water system has grown tremendously to support a current population of
over 138,000 people. The City's water' system is comprised of 16 groundwater wells, 8
connections to the imported water supply, 18 water storage tanks with a total storage capacity of
over 42 million gallons; 18 pumping stations; 437 miles of pipelines, and over 34,000 service
connections. Orange's water comes from two sources: the primary source is groundwater. from
OCWD,'which makes up 641/6 to 75% of the supply; the second source is imported water
purchased from MET through MWDOC. The city also utilizes local supply through an agreement
with Serrano Water District who provides treated local runoff captured in Irvine Lake.
Un 2_7
SEcnoNTWO MULTI-IURISDICTIoHn PARTICIPpnWm
The governing body of the City of Orange is a five - member Council. Under a council- manager
form of government, a. mayor is elected every two years and four council members are elected to
four -year terns alternating on a two-year basis. The City Manager, who is the administrative
official of the City, is appointed by the City Council. The water rate structure and all other
regulations must be approved by City Council before becoming effective.
2.1.14 Santa Margarita Water District (Service Population: 150,000)
Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) established in December 1964 under provisions of the
California Water District Law (Section 34000 et seq. of the California Water Code), includes
62,674 acres in the southeastern corner of Orange County. SMWD is bounded on the north by El
Toro Road in the City of Lake Forest, on the east by the Cleveland National Forest, on the south
by United States Marine Corp Camp Pendleton and Orange County and on the west by the City of
San Juan Capistrano and Moulton Niguel Water District. SMWD is responsible for inter- utility
coordination and long range planning to meet future water supply and wastewater treatment needs
for its service area.
The Cities of Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, a portion of San Clemente and the
incorporated communities of Caro de. Caza, Las Flores and Ladera Ranch, as well as . the
remaining undeveloped portion of the Rancho Mission Viejo are within the service boundary of
SMWD.
The governing body of SMWD (and all improvement districts therein) is a five -member Board of •
Directors, publicly elected at large for staggered four -year terms. SMWD's "responslbilnties as
authorized by the California Water District Law are:
• Distribution of domestic water for consumption and fire protection
• Collection and treatment of wastewater.
• Distribution of recycled water along with the collection and distribution.of urban return
flows for irrigation purposes.
Nearly 100% of the District's annual domestic water demands are imported from MET Through
MWDOC. SMWD receives imported (potable) water from MET via the regional distribution
system located in Orange County (Allen- McColloch Pipeline and the East Orange County Feeder
No. 2).
2.1.15 Serrano Water District (Service Population: 6,500)
Serrano Water District (Serrano) was formed in 1927 under the California Water Code and serves .
a population of 6,500 in the City of Villa Park and a small portion of the City of Orange. Serrano
is an independent governmental body with an elected Board of Directors. It is separate and
distinct from the City of Villa Park's Municipal Government. Serrano receives its water supply
mostly from local surface water which is stored in Irvine Lake and groundwater from three wells
located within the City of Villa Park. Annually, Serrano provides about. 3,500 acre -feet of water
serving primarily large lot single family homes and one shopping center. About once every 10
Ulm 2 -8 •
• SECTIUATWO MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATIDIN
years, Serrano supplements its local water supply with raw imported water from MET through
MWDOC
Serrano owns 50 percent capacity of Irvine Lake and the dam forming the lake; Irvine Ranch
Water District (IRWD) owns the other 50 percent. Serrano is the managing district for the Irvine
Lake facility and its recreational aspects. The annual operation of Irvine Lake varies depending
on the amount of local runoff.
The water Serrano receives out of Irvine Lake can be either locally generated runoff, imported
water or some combination thereoE Water is supplied from Irvine Lake to the Serrano treatment
plant, located about 1.5 miles away, through a 24" gravity flow supply line that has a capacity of
about 17 cubic feet per second (cfs). Serrano's existing water treatment plant can produce about
3,000 gallons per minute (gpm), and its wells can produce about 2500 gpm for a peak supply of
about 5,500 gpm. In recent years, Serrano has been using their treatment plant to supply 1,000 to
1,500 acre-feet of water to the City of Orange through interconnections.
2.1.16 South Coast Water District (Service Population: 40,000)
South Coast Water District (SCWD) is a public utility, formed by popular vote and owned by the
people it serves. SCWD is a special district operating under state law, completely independent of
county government A Board of Directors, elected by the voters of the District, has the power to
establish policies; fix rates, construct and maintain facilities and perform any other act necessary
to +provide water and sanitation service for present and future consumers. Day -to-day operations
are administered; by a general manager who is appointed by the Board of Directors.
SCWD has gone through several consolidations and.reorgaoizations to accommodate the needs of
the community, as well as to provide the most efficient water and sanitary services possible. At
this time the District serves approximately 12,300 water and 17,800 sewer accounts. The area
serviced by SCWD has an estimated population of 40,000 residents and two million visitors a
year. The District purchases imported water from MET through MWDOC.
Due to the District's hilly terrain, much of the water must be pumped and stored in reservoirs to
maintain constant pressure. The District's total water storage capacity of approximately 22 million
gallons is maintained in 15 reservoirs. Water is moved to upper elevations through approximately
147 miles of local mains using a system of nine pump stations. As an additional safeguard to
assure the water supply, the District maintains a series of "inter -ties" with neighboring water
districts which can be activated in an emergency. Additionally, recycled water. is used for
landscape irrigation on parks, golf courses, playgrounds and greenbelt areas. Using recycled
water for landscaping irrigation frees up imported drinking water for other uses.
In April of 2000, SCWD accepted the responsibility for operations and maintenance of what is
now identified as the joint Regional Water Supply System (JRWSS). The JRWSS provides water
transmission over a 26 mile service area to approximately 200,000 residents. JRWSS operates
two storage/regulating reservoirs located in San Clemente: Bradt Reservoir with a capacity of 48
mg, and the Schlegel Reservoir with a capacity of 12 mg.
40 MM 2 -9
SECTIONTWO MULTI- IUNISDIMONAL PUTICIPAT101N •
2.1.17 Trabuco Canyon District (Service Population: 14,000)
The Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD) is a county water district organized and operating
pursuant to Section 34,000 and following, of the Water Code of the State of California. The
District was organized on February 26, 1962 under Division XII of the California Water Code.
The District is governed by a five - member Board of Directors elected to alternating four -year
terms at elections held every two years.
Trabuco Canyon Water District is located in the southeastern portion of Orange County at the
foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and encompasses approximately 9,100 acres. The terrain
within the District is generally steep hills and canyons throughout the central area of the District.
The east and west sides consist of more gentle terrain made up primarily of rolling hills.
Elevations within the District range from approximately 900 feet above mean sea level in the
lower Aliso Creek area and the southern area of Dove Canyon, to nearly 2,400 fact in the
northeasterly portion of the District adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest.
Prior to 2000, the District was entirely within the unincorporated area of Orange County. In 2000,
the City of Rancho Santa Margarita was incorporated and now covers the eastern portion of the
DistricL TCWD serves an estimated population of 13,665 in the City of Rancho Santa Margarita,
City of Lake Forest, and an unincorporated'area of Orange County.
The•District provides water, wastewater and recycled water service to major communities within
the. District's: service area The District's sources of water supply are imported treated water,
imported surface water treated at the District's water treatment plank and treated 'local
• .
groundwater. To provide reliability and redundancy, the District's system is interconnected with
adjacent utilities including Santa Margarita Water District, Irvine Ranch Water District, and El
Toro Water District.
2.1.18 City of Tustin (Service Population: 65,000)
The City of Tustin is a General Law city, governed by a 5- member non partisan generally elected
city council under the. council- manager form of government. The City is staffed, with
approximately 290 full -time employees with approximately 22 full -time employees within the
Water Services Division
The City of Tustin (rustin) bought the privately held Tustin Water Works in 1980. Tustin serves
a population of approximately 65,000 people, with 14,500 service connections. The service area
totals 8.4 square miles which includes most of the incorporated area of the City of Tustin and
unincorporated areas north of the City. Currently, supply deliveries are 84 percent from
groundwater and 16 percent from imported water. There are seven untreated or "clear"
groundwater wells that pump directly into the distribution system. Two'treatment plants treat
groundwater from five additional wells to potable standards -for delivery into the system At
several. sites, water is blended with other well. water or imported water to reduce nitrate
concentrations below the State Maximum Contaminant level (MCL). The water. system is divided
into three pressure zones. The average ground elevations for Zones 1, 2, and 3 are 210 feet, 280
feet, and 400 feet above mean sea level, respectively.
•
2 -10
SECTIONTWO I MUITHUBISDICTIONAI PAIMCIPATIOIN
Currently, Tustin has approximately 13.83 mg of storage rapacity in its six existing reservoirs and
three booster stations. Water is delivered through 170 miles of 1.5 -inch to 20 -inch water mains.
2.1.19 City of Westminster (Service Population: 93,000)
Westminster is located on eleven square miles of broad, flat coastal plain in western Orange
County, five miles from the Pacific Ocean and 25 miles southeast of Los Angeles. Westminster
is a general law city that operates under the Council — Manager Form of government, which is
responsible for establishing water rates.
The Westminster Water Division currently provides potable water to 93,000 residents and the
business community using 20,000 service connections. At present, Westminster has 12 active
wells and three import water connections. Two of the three imported water interties are from
regionally operated pipelines shared with other agencies. On annual average, 66 percent of
drinking water is produced by wells and 34 percent is imported. The Water Division does not
manage wastewater disposal or recycled water for the City. Wastewater is handled by the
Midway City Sanitation District.
2.1.20 Yorba Linda Water District (Service Population: 75,000)
Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) is an independent special district that provides water and
sewer service to residents and businesses within its service area The District's history dates back
• to 1909, when local farmers'and. ranchers formed the Yorba Linda Water Company. In 1959; the
voters elected to create a public utility with the assets of the Water Company, and the YLWD was
formed under the California Water District Law, Division 13 of the Water Code of the State of
California.
The District is governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors comprised of five Directors who
serve four year terms. The Directors set District policies and programs, provide general oversight
of District activities, set water and sewer rates, and employ the general manager to direct. the
activities of the District.
YLWD provides water and sewer services to most of Yorba Linda, and to portions of Placentia,
Anaheim, Brea, and unincorporated Orange County. From 1959 through the mid- 1970s, the
District experienced a gradual transition from a rural, agriculturally orientated area to a suburban
community. In 1978, YLWD Board of Directors agreed to annex lands to the east of then current
boundaries that more than doubled the District's size. YLWD purchases imported water from
MET through MWDOC to provide up to 50% of its demand for its more than 23,000 service
connections. The remaining water comes from the District's local production wells which are
pumped from the OCWD groundwater basin.
• It= 24 1
• SECTIONTHREE PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
SECTION 3 PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EACH JURISDICTION'S PARTICIPATION IN
THE PLANNING PROCESS,
Representatives from all participating water and wastewater utilities provided input into the
preparation of the Plan. Because the operations of water and wastewater facilities is confidential
for security reasons only approved MWDOC/PWU and URS staff participated in portions of the
planning process that included discussions concerning the locations and operations of critical
facilities. The public was informed of the planning process through public notices, the MWDOC
website, and was invited to participate in discussions on hazards identified in the County as well
as the MWDOC/PWU mitigation goals and objectives. Confidential data was excluded from
these public meetings.
The planning process for the Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard
Mitigation Plan involved ten water districts, two regional wastewater agencies, and the public
utilities departments for eight cities; a total of 20 jurisdictions participated in the planning
process. MWDOC served as the lead for the plan preparation, monitored planning progress, and
met with participating jurisdictions as needed to assist with preparing capabilities assessments
and assets worksheds. The MWDOC/PWU participated in the planning process by exchanging
information,, -discussing planning strategies; sharing goals, resolving issues, and monitoring
progress. The periodic MWDOC and PWU meetings included discussions of the planning
process with neighboring jurisdictions, but.all Hazard Mitigation Working Group UDMG)
meetings were private due to the confidential nature of the data discussed The, participating
jurisdictions benefited from working closely together because many of the hazard mitigation
issues identified are shared by neighboring jurisdictions.
All meeting attendees were provided an overview of hazard mitigation planning at the meetings.
This training was designed after the FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How -to Guide
worksheets, which led' the attendees through the process of defining the jurisdiction's assets;
vulnerabilities, capabilities, goals and objectives, and action items. In addition, several HMWG
members and with URS staff specifically to discuss hazard- related goals, objectives and actions.
Preliminary goals, objectives and actions developed by jurisdiction staff were reviewed with their
respective management and/or representatives for approval.
The HMWG were given maps of the profiled hazards to compare with their detailed jurisdiction -
level maps that illustrated the critical facilities. Data received from the HMWG were added to
the hazard database and used in the modeling process described in the Risk Assessment portion of
the Plan (Section 4). Jurisdictions that provided URS with updated hazard- related data are:
• MWDOC - provided local liquefaction/soil'stability data
• Center for Demographic Research (CDR) - provided earthquake shake, epicenter and
fault data
All PWU provided URS with edits to critical facility maps within their jurisdictions.
• 3 -1
0 0
SECTIONTHREE PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING COMMITTEE FORMATION
MWDOC hired URS Corporation (URS) to assist with the development of the Plan. Kelly
Hubbard, the project coordinator for MWDOC, requested input from all water and wastewater
utilities in Orange County. Ms. Hubbard received positive responses from ten water districts, two
wastewater districts, and eight city utilities and representatives from these jurisdictions attended a
kickoff meeting to develop an approach to the planning process and to help form the HMWG.
MWDOC also provided an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional utilities
involved in hazard mitigation activities, and utilities that have the authority to regulate
development, as well as business, academia and other private and non -profit interests to be
involved in non - confidential portions of the planning process. Some of those parties are listed in
Section 3.2 below. The committee was formed as an advisory body to undertake the planning
process and meeting dates were set for all members of the committee to attend. Jurisdictional
representatives included but were not limited to utility engineers, planners and emergency
management officers.
3.3 NAME OF PLANNING COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS
The HMWG is comprised of representatives from the 12 participating water and wastewater
utilities and eight participating cities, as listed above in Section 2.1. The HMWG met regularly,
and served as a forum for other utilities and the public to voice their opinions and concerns about
non- confidential portions of the mitigation plan. Although several jurisdictions sent several
representatives to the HMWG meetings, each jurisdiction selected a lead representative who
acted as the liaison between their jurisdictional Local Mitigation Planning Team and the HMWG.
Each local team, made up of other jurisdictional staff/officials met separately and provided
additional local -level input to the leads for inclusion into the Plan. Participants in the planning
process are listed below in Table 3.3 -1. The lead representatives for each district are highlighted.
Table 3.3 -1
Planning Representatives for Participating Jurisdictions
Name I Utility I Title
Zack Barret
City of Garden Grove
Water Quality Supervisor
Robert Bermudez
City of Garden Grove
Production Supervisor
Brent Hayes
City of Garden Grove
Sanitation Supervisor
Les Ruitenchild
City of Garden Grove
Distribution Supervisor
Don Tunison
City of Garden Gmve
Senior Production Operator
Jerry Wander City of La Habra I Water /Sewer Manager
Tim Deutsch City of Newport Beach Utilities Administrative Manager
Teresa Moritz I City of Newport Beach Administrative Analyst
URS 3 -2
0
•
u
E
0
• SECTIONTHREE PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
0
URS 3 -3
SECTIONTHREE
0
PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
3.4
HAZARD MITIGATION WORKING GROUP MEETINGS
The HMWG had regular monthly meetings; the following is a list of HMWG meeting dates and
content of meetings (see Appendix Al to A7 for sign -in sheets, meeting agendas, and meeting
minutes). In addition, Kelly Hubbard met with and coordinated with the participating
jurisdictions on various additional dates in person, via telephone or via email.
HMWG Meetine Dates/Results of Meetine
• HMWG Meeting 1:
10- 18- 05/Kickoff and Formation of HMWG
• HMWG Meeting 2:
11- 15 -05/ Identifying Risks /Identifying Assets
• HMWG Meeting 3:
12- 13 -05/ Inventory of Assets/Verifying Facility Locations
• HMWG Meeting 4:
2- 14 -06/ Goals, Objectives, and Actions/Capabilities Assessment
• HMWG Meeting 5:
4- 18 -06/ Development of Mitigation Plan/Hazard Maps/Loss
Estimation
• HMWG Meeting 6:
06- 20-06/ Review Risk Assessment/Jurisdiction Descriptions
• HMWG Meeting 7:
08- 15- 06/Distribution of Draft Plan
Other meetings included individual meetings with jurisdictions, presentations to community and
government planning groups, and by individual jurisdictions' governing boards for adoption of
the Plan.
3.5 PLANNING PROCESS MILESTONES
The approach taken by MWDOC relied on sound planning concepts and a methodical process to
identify water and wastewater vulnerabilities and to propose the mitigation actions necessary to
avoid or reduce those vulnerabilities. Each step in the planning process was built upon the
[FRIL9
34
J
•
• SECTIONTHREE PWININO PROCESS DOCUMENTATION.
previous, providing a high level of assurance that the mitigation actions proposed by the
participants and the priorities of implementation are valid. 'Specific milestones in the process
included:
• Risk Assessment (October, 2005 — June 2006) - The HMWG used the FEMA list of
hazards from the State and Local Mitigation Planning How -to Guide (How-to Guide) to
identify natural hazards that potentially threaten all or portions of the County. In addition
to natural hazards, the HMWG also identified manmade hazards that may threaten all or
portions of the County and individual PWU. Specific geographic areas subject to the
impacts of the identified hazards were mapped using a Geographic Information System
(GIS). The HMWG had access to information and resources regarding hazard
identification and risk estimation. This included hazard specific maps, such as floodplain
delineation maps, earthquake shake potential maps, and wildfire threat maps; GIS -based
analyses of hazard areas; the locations of in$astrucnve, - critical facilities, and other
properties located within each jurisdiction; and an estimate of potential losses or exposure
to losses from each hazard
Many of the participating utilities had recently completed a vulnerability assessment of
their critical facilities in compliance with the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. These documents.
and data were.milized in the HMP planning process. GIS data and modeling results were
used to identify specific vulnerabilities that could be addressed by specific mitigation
actions. The HMWG also reviewed the history of disasters in the County and assessed the
• need for specific mitigation actions based on the type and location of damage caused by
past events.
Finally, the assessment of community vulnerabilities included a review of existing codes,
plans, policies, programs, and regulations used by the PWU to determine whether
existing provisions and requirements adequately address the hazards that pose .the
greatest risk to the community.
Gods, Objectives and Alternative Mitigation Actions, (June, 2006- February, 2006) —
Based on this understanding of the hazards faced by the County, a series of goals and
objectives were identified by HMWG members to guide subsequent planning activities. "
In addition, a series of alternative mitigation actions were identified to address these
goals and objectives. This was .done in the HMWG meeting series described above,
starting in October, 2005 and continuing through July, 2006.
Mitigation Plan and Implementation Strategy (March —July, 2006) — The HMWG
determined the priorities for action from among all the alternatives identified. Each
agency will utilize current approved planting documents that identify specific
implementation strategies for capital improvement, risk reduction, system upgrades, and
operations, which include details regarding who is responsible for project managemeut,
estimated costs, possible funding sources, and timelines for implementation. These plans
complement the Plan and include but are not limited to:
• Strategic Plans
• Capital Improvement Plans
• Um 3-5
SECTIONTHREE PUNNING PROCESS DOCUMENTAtION
• General Plans
• EPA Vulnerability Assessments and ERP
• Asset Management Plan
Work Group Meetings (October, 2005 — August, 2006) — As listed in Section 3.4 a series
of meetings were held in which the I-MWG considered the probability of a hazard
occurring in an area and its impact on public health and safety, property, the economy,
and the environment, and the mitigation actions that would be necessary to minimize
impacts from the identified hazards. With the exception of two re- scheduled meetings,
these meetings were held every month starting October 18, 2005 and continued through
August 15, 2006. The meetings evolved as the planning process progressed, and were
designed to aid the jurisdictions in. completing worksheets that helped define hazards
within their jurisdictions, their existing capabilities and mitigation goals and action items
for the Mitigation
3.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Water and wastewater facility location and operational information is confidential for security
reasons due to the need to ensure public.safety. As axesult, public participation was restricted to
two information meetings wherein the participating jurisdictions shared the mitigation planning
process and their goals and objectives to increase the safety and security of their facilities and
therefore enhance the safety of the community. Throughout the planning process, MWDOC
published news releases on the planning process and progress, and developed.a website with this
information The PWU also met with non- participating utilities and districts that they have co-
operative agreements with to inform them of plan progress and invite input. Meetings with the
HMWG, internal meetings within each PWU, meetings with co-operating utilities, three public
meetings, and a webpage with a "contact us" link on the MWDOC website served as methods to
obtain input and identify priorities in developing goals for reducing risk and preventing loss from
natural hazards in Orange County . Public involvement included:
• . Public Information Meeting to educate citizens, public officials, and business leaders
about the hazard mitigation planning process. Topics included hazard mitigation planning
and its benefits, steps in the hazard. mitigation planning process, and the importance of
community input and participation, especially to suggest mitigation goals to be
incorporated into the Plan
Public Meeting Dates-
- ETWD Community Advisory Group: September 7, 2006
— Public Meeting and Presentation: September 12, 2006
- Public Meeting and Presentation: September 14, 2006
3.6
SECTIONTHREE PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
Public ResnQnse and Comments to develop lists of potential mitigation actions by
soliciting community input regarding vulnerabilities and potential solutions. Citizens
participated by reviewing the hazards maps, reviewing the draft plan, and discussing the
hazard mitigation purpose. They were then able to ask questions and provide comments
for the HMWG to consider. Comment cards were distributed at the public workshops.
See Appendix B for a summary of the workshops.
• Press Releases were prepared and released to solicit public review and comment. See
Appendix C for copies of press releases and public notices.
Press Release Dates:
— October 17, 2005: Announcing Initiation of the Planning Process
— July 5,2006: Announcing Public Workshops via website & bill inserts
— August 25, 2006: Announcing the Public Workshops via regional and local print
media
• A. HAn d Mitigation Plan Web Site was developed to provide the public with
information. Items posted on the web site included public meeting announcements,
PowerPoint presentations, a Hazard Mitigation Fact Sheet, hazard maps, the draft plan,
and links to FEMA guidance documents. Anyone viewing the site could choose a
"contact us" link to provide comment via email
Public involvement was valuable in the development of the Plan. Feedback given during the
public meetings led to the re- prioritization of mitigation actions, and acted as a reality check in
determining the impacts of the Plan on the general public.
3.7 EXISTING PLANS OR STUDIES REVIEWED
HMWG team members and their corresponding Local Mitigation Planning Teams reviewed
several plans, studies, and guides both prior to and during the planning process. These plans
included FEMA documents, emergency services documents as well as water district and local
general plans and community plans. These included:
• County of Orange Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Itvine.Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Various Vulnerability Assessments and Emergency Response Plans
• Various Local Codes and Ordinances
• State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to guide, FEMA 386-2, August 2001
-Interim Hazard Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for California Local Governments
• FEMA CRS -DMA2K Mitigation Planning Requirements
• South Orange County Water Reliability Study QvMOC)
UM
3 -7
SECTIONTHREE PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION •
• Executive Summary of the Value of a Reliable Water Supply Study (Appendix D)
Crosswalk Reference Document for Review and Submission of Local Mitigation Plans to
the State Hazard Mitigation Officer and FEMA Regional Office
V 3_8 •
• SECTION FOUR
SECTION 4 RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment requires the collection and analysis of hazard- related data to enable local jurisdictions to
identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce losses from potential hazards. The FEMA
State and Local Miligadon PlanWng How-to Guide (How -to Guide) identifies five Risk Assessment steps as
part of the hazard mitigation planning process, including: 1) identifying hazards, which involves determhting
those hazards posing a threat to a study area, 2) profiling hazards, which involves mapping identified hazards
and their geographic extent, 3) identifying asses, which assigns value to structures and landmarks in the
identified hazard areas, 4) assessing vulnerability, which involves predicting the extent of damage to assets,
and 5 analyzing development trends, which assesses future development and population growth to determine
potential future threat from hazards. These steps are described in detail in the following sections, first.with an
..Overall summary of hazard identification and data collection in Section 4.2, then with a jurisdictional gommary
of hazards, assets and vulnerability in Section 4.3.
4.1.1 Identifying Hazards
Hazard identification is the process of identifying hazards that threaten an area including both natural and
man -made events. A natural event causes a hazard when it harms people or property. Such events would
• include floods, earthquakes, tornadoes; tsunami; coastal storms, landslides, and wildfires that strilre populated
areas. Man -made hazard events are caused by human activity and include technological hazards and terrorism.
Technological hazards are generally accidental and/or have unintended consequences (for example, an
accidental hazardous materials release), Terrorism is defined by the Code of Federal Regulations as
"..:unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
civilian population, or any segment thereoty in furtherance of political or social objectives." Natural hazards
that have harmed the County in the past are likely to happen in the future; consequently, the 'p rocess of
identifying hazards includes determining whether or not the hazard has occurred previously. To. identify the
potential hazards, extensive research was conducted. In addition to reviewing hazards identified in the Orange
County HW, URS collected' historical hazard data including researching newspapers and -other'rwords,
conducting 'a planning document and report literature review in all relevant hazards subject areas, gathering
hazard- related GIS data, and engaging in conversation with relevant experts from the community. In addition,
a variety of sources were used to determine the full range of potential hazards within Orange County. Even
though a particular hazard may not have occurred in recent history in Orange County, it is important during the
hazard identification stage to consider all hazards that may potentially affect the study area.
4.1.2 Profiling Hazards
Hazard profiling entails describing the physical characteristics of past hazards such as their magnitude,
duration, frequency, and probability. This stage of the hazard mitigation planning process involves creating
base maps of the study area and then collecting and mapping hazard event profile information obtained from
various Federal, State, and local government utilities. URS obtained data and maps available online from
sources such as the United. States Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), FEMA, and ESRI (a Geographic Information System [GIS] software development
• tUn 4 -I
SECTION FOUR Risk assessment
firm). Local utilities were contacted to provide more detailed and accurate data for Orange County. Where
possible, the hazard data were mapped to determine the geographic extent of the hazards in each PWU in the
County. Data that could not be mapped were evaluated qualitatively by the HMWG based on their knowledge
of their facilities and the probable extentloccurrence of these hazards. The level of risk associated with each
hazard in each jurisdiction was also estimated and assigned a risk level depending on several factors unique to
that particular hazard.
4.1.3 Identifying Assets (Process Related Discussion)
The third step of the risk assessment process entails identifying which assets in each jurisdiction will be
affected by each hazard type. Assets include any type of structure or facility associated with the operation of
water and wastewater infrastructure. An inventory of existing and proposed assets within each PWU was
generated. The assets were then mapped to show their locations and to determine their vulnerability to each
hazard type.
4.1.4 Assessing Vulnerability (Process Related Discussion)
Vulnerability describes the degree to which an asset is susceptible to damage from a hazard Vulnerability
depends,on an asset's construction, contents and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages,
the vulnerability of one facility is often related to the vulnerability of another: Often,. indirect effects can be
much more widespread and damaging than direct effects; especially when considering that outages, at water
facilities can result in significant economic consequences and losses in product output and impact to residents •
and businesses. A vulnerability analysis predicts the extent of injury and damage that may result froin.a hazard
event of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment ident fes;;the. effects of natural and
marl -made hazard events by estimating the relative exposure of existing: and future population; land
development, and infrastructure to hazardous conditions. The assessment helps set mitigation priorities by
allowing local jurisdictions to focus attention on areas most likely to be damaged or most likely to require .
early emergency response during a hazard event. Pursuant to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 some of the PWU
have completed security vulnerability assessments of their water facilities. These assessments were utilized by
each.PWU to identify hazards that could not be modeled in GIS that may affect their facilities. Further, this
information was key in developing objectives and action items to enhance the security of water and wastewater
facilities.
4.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING
4.2.1 List of Hazards Prevalent in the Jurisdiction
The HMWG reviewed hazards listed in the How -to Guide and determined the prevalence of each hazard in
Orange County and whether each hazard should be included in the Plan. All hazards identified by FEMA in
the How- To-Guides were reviewed. They. include: avalanche, coastal storm, coastal erosion, .dam failure,
droughttwater supply, earthquake, expansive soils, extreme heat, flooding, hailstorm, houselbuilding fire, land
subsidence, landslide, liquefaction, severe winter storm, tornado, tsunami, wildfire, windstorm, and volcano.
Although not required by the FEMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, manmade hazards. such as hazardous
materials release, nuclear materials release, and terrorism were also reviewed by the HMWG.
42
1•
SECTION FOUR Risk assessment
4.2.2 Hazard Identification Process
As summarized above, hazard identification is the process of identifying all hazards that threaten an area,
including both natural and man -made events. In the hazard identification stage, URS worked with the HMWG
to determine hazards that potentially threaten Orange County: The hazard screening process: involved
narrowing the FEMA all- inclusive list of hazards to those most threatening to the Orange County.region. Most
of the hazards identified in the Orange Comfy HMP were selected by the HMWG to be reviewed in the Plan
as hazards that might affect water and wastewater facilities and structures. In addition to these hazards the
HMWG determined that there are some other hazards that could adversely affect their resources.
URS used information from FEMA and other nationally and locally available databases to map the County's
hazards,.infiastucture and critical facilities. This initial mapping effort was utilized in the hazard screening
process to determine which hazards would present the greatest risk to MWDOC and the PWU.
The HMWG indicated that based on the fact that the majority of the development in Orange County is
relatively recent (within the last 60 years), an urban type of fire that destroys multiple city blocks is not likely
to occur alone, without a wildfire in the urban/wildland interface occurring first. Therefore, it was determined
that houselbuilding fire and wildfire should be addressed as one hazard category in the plan.
The final list of hazards to be profiled for Orange County was determined as:
• Tsunamis,
• Contamination,
• Dam Failure,
Drought/Extreme Heat,
+ Earthquake;
• Liquefaction,
• Expansive soils,.
• Floods/Coastal Storms,
High whumanta Arne Winds (resulting in power outages),
• Landslidelmudslide,
• Land Subsidence,
• Tornado,
MW
•
D...m e.or w 4 -3
SECTION FOUR
• Wildfir)&Urban Fire, and
• Human caused hazards.
Table 4.2.2-1 shows a summary of the hazard identification results for Orange County.
Table 4.2.2-1
Summary of Hazard Identification Results
Hazard
Data Collected for Hazard Identification
Justification for Inclusion
Coastal Storms,
• Historical Coadnes (NOM)
Coastal stones prompted 8 Proclaimed States of
Erosion
* FEMA FIRM Maps
Emergency Imm 1950-1997
• FEMA Hazards vkbsite
• Coastline stabilization measures have been
• Coastal Zone Boundalry (Cali(ornia
implemented at various limes In the past
Coastal Commission)
(erosion)
• Orange County— Planning and
• Extensive development along the coast
Development Services
Ground Water
* OCIND Historical Records
• In 1958, the water table was 15-ft below sea
Contamination/
level and sak water had encroached several
Salt Water
miles (Wand.
Intrusion
Dam Failure
* FEMA-HAZUS MH
• Dam faflure
• FEMA Hazards website
• Several dams exist throughout Orange County
• Topography (USGS)
• Many dams over 30 years old
e Increased downstream development
Drought/Extreme
Long periods without substantial rainfall.
The Orange County region relies extensively on
Heat
• Temperatures that hover 10 degrees or
imported water. Long periods without substantial
more above the average high
rairdall in Northern Calffomla and In the Colorado
temperature for the region and last for
River watershed would affect Orange County water
several weeks
supply more than a local rainfall derldt. Additionally
there are, regional water conservation and water
management programs already in place. ..:,-
Earftake/
• USGS
• Several active faift zones pow through Orange
UqueMord
* CGS
County;.
Tsunami
* URS
• Steep slopes or alluvial deposit s.dis in low-lying
• Maximum Tsunami Run up Projections
areas are susceptible to, liquefaction during
(USCA OES)
earthquakes or heavy rala Orange County
• Historical Tsunami Run ups and Events
twain has both of these characteristics and lies
• CISN
within several active earthquake zones
• FEMA-HAZUS MH
Tsunami linked to seismic occurrences in
• FEMA Hazards website
SoAem Callomia.
• Faults, Liquefaction (Orange County)
• Earthquake (Center for Demographic
Research (CORI Cal State Fullerton,
Earth Consultants)
•
Doc%rnmm.o 4-4 •
,• SECTION FOUR
•
Risk Assessment
Table 4.2.2 -1
Summary of Hazard Identification Results
Hazard
Data Collected for HazardldenUfica00n
Justification for Inclusion
Expansive soils
Expansive soils shrink when dry and swell
Presents a minor threat to limited portions of the
when wet. This movement can exert
County
enough pressure to ciadt sidewalks,
ddwh -ays, basement floors, pipelines and
even foundations
• State Soils Geographic Data Base
(United States Department of
Agriculture)
Floods
• FEMA FIRM Maps
• Much of Orange County is located within the
• Topography'
504earfloodplaiin
• Base flood elevations (FEMA)
• Flash floods and other flood events occur
• Hlstorical good records
regularly during rainstorms due to terrain and
• FEMA Hazards website
hydrology of Orange County
•' FEMA -HAZUS MH
• There were 10 Proclaimed States of Emergency
. FEMA Hazards website
between 19501997 forfloods in Orange County
Haigh winds/
• County of Orange Historical Data
• Wind gusts damage power transmission Ines,
Santa Ana Winds
resuking In loss of power at critical facilities.
Landslide
• USGS
• . Steep slopes within earthquake zones.exid in
• CGS,.
Orange County, which creates landslide risk
• FEMA -HAZUS MH
• Blue Bird Canyon Landslide in 2005.
• FEMA Hazards.website
• NEH
Land subsidence
Occurs when large amounts of groundwater
Soils in Orange County area susceptible to
have been w ithdrawm from certain types of
subsidence.
s6ls, such as fine-grained sediments. The
soil.compacis because the water is partly
responsible for holding the ground up.
Tomado
A tornado is a violent windstorm
Southern California experiences 30 percent of
characterized by a twisting, funnel- shaped
tornadoes that occur in California.
cloud. It is spavined by a thunderstorm (or
sometimes as a result of a hurricane) and
produced when cool air overrides a layer of
warm air, forcing the wane air to rise
rapidly. The damage from a tornado is a
result of the high wind velocity and wind-
blown debris.
• l mea.�a++e oa as 45
SECTION FOUR BIskA$SeSSM601
Table 4.2.2 -1
Summary of Flazs rd Identification Results
Hazard
Data Collected for Hazard Identification
Justification for Inclusion
Wldfiref
CDF -FRAP
• Orange County experiences wildfires on a
Shucture Fire
. Orange County Fire Authority
regular basis
• CDFG
• 7 States of Emergency were declared for
• Topography
wildfires between 1950 -2003
• Local Fire Mikes
• Terrain and ornate of Orange
• Historical fire records
• Santa Ana Winds
• FEMA Hazards websile
Human Caused
County of Orange Environmental Health
• Thefederal,and state governments have
Hazards
Department Hazardous Materials
advised everylurisdiciion to consider the
Division
terrorism hazard
• San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
• The potential exists for an accidental release to
(SONGS) and Department of Defense
occur at SONGS
• Heightened security concerns since September
2001
• The storage and used of chemicals at fadlrlies.
Data in GIS format was projected into the State Plane, NAD 1983, California Zone VI Coordinate System (US
Survey Units. Fect� and clipped :to the Orange County and Jurisdictional boundaries. Data that was not
available in GIS format was either digitized into GIS or kept in its original format and used as a reference. A
matrix of all data collected, including source, original projection, scale, and data limitations is included in
Appendix E. Data and methods that were ultimately used to determine risk levels and probability of
occurrence for each hazard are described in detail in the hazard profiling sections.
4.2.3 Hazard Identification Sources
Once the hazards of concern for Orange County were determined, URS collected the available dafd, using
sources including the Internet, direct communication with various utilities, discussions with in -house URS
experts, and historical records. Specific sources included the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
California Geological Survey (CGS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'HAZUS, FEMA.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (F1RM), United States Forest Service (USFS), California Department of Forestry —
Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF- FRAP), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), California Seismic Safety
Commission (CSSC), California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN), Orange County Bureau of Emergency
Services, United States Department of Agriculture, Drought Outlook websites, and input gathered from local
jurisdictions, districts and utilities. Table 4.2.2 -1 also depicts data sources researched and utilized by hazard, as
well as brief justifications for inclusion of each hazard of concern in the Orange County region.
o•w�w,eaeae 4 -6
•
• SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment
Non - Profiled Hazards
During the initial evaluation the HMWG determined that anumber of hazards would not be included in the
profiling step because they were not prevalent hazards within the County. The following table gives a brief
description of those hazards and the reason for their exclusion from the list.
Table 4.2.41
Summary of hazards Excluded from Hazard Profiting
Hazard
Description
Reason for Exclusion
Avalanche
A mass of snow, moving down a slope.
Snowfall in the County mountains not significark poses
There are two basic dements to a side; a
very minor Met compared to other hazards; no
steep, snow-covered slope and a trigger
historical record of this hazard in the region.
Hailstorm
Can occur during thunderstorms that bring
Occurs during severe thunderstorms most fikelyto
heavy rains, strong winds, hail, lightning
occur in the ceMratand southern stales; no HsWcal
and tornadoes
record of this hazard in the region.
- Severe winder storm
Large amounts of falling or blowing snow
Mina threat in mountains of the County. No historical
and sustained winds of at least 35 miles per
record of this hazard In the region.
hour occurring for several hours
Volcano
A volcano is a mountain that Is built up by
No active volcanoes in Orange County. No historical
an accumulation of lava, ash flows, and
record of this hazard in the region.
airborne ash and dust. When pressure from
gases and the molten rock within the
volcano becomes strong enough to cause
an eiplosion, eiuptfons occur.
4.3 HAZARD PROFILES
A hazard profile is a description of the physical characteristics of a hazard and a determination of various
hazard descriptors, including magnitude,. duration, frequency, probability, and extent. The hazard data that was
collected in the hazard identification prcess was mapped to determine the geographic extent of the hazards in
each jurisdiction in the County and the level of risk,associated with each hazard. Most hazards were given a
risk level of high, medium or low depending on several factors unique to the hazard. The hazards identified
and profiled for Orange County, as well. as the data used to profile each hazard, are. presented in this section.
The hazards are presented in alphabetical order; and this does not signify level of importance to the, HMW G.
Table 4.2.4 -2 provides a summary of the Hazard Valuation Loss for each mapped hazard
• UM Dz .iM aavw 4 -7
SECTION FOUR RskAssessment •
Table 4.2.4 -2
Hazard Valuation Loss Summary by Hazard
4.3.1 Tsunami
4.17.1 Nature of Hazard
The phenomenon we call "tsunami" is a series of traveling ocean waves of extremely long length. generated
primarily by earthquakes occurring below or near the ocean floor. In the deep ocean, the tsunami waves move
across the deep ocean with a speed exceeding 500 miles per hour, and a wave height of only a few inches.
Tsunami waves are distinguished from ordinary ocean waves by their great length between wave crests, often
exceeding 60 miles or more in the deep ocean, and by the time between these crests, ranging from 10 minutes
to an hour.
As they reach the shallow waters of the coast, the waves slow down and the water can pile up into a wall of
dcstruction up to 30 feet or more in height. The effect can be amplified where a bay, harbor or lagoon fimnels
the wave as it moves inland. Large tsunamis have been known to rise over 100 feet. Even a tsunami 1 -3 feet
high can be very destructive and cause many deaths and injuries.
•
user. av, a awns 4 -8 •
Replacement
Hazard
Event
Value $M .
Earthquake
Moderate
$3,251
High
$3,986
Extreme
$662
Flood
100 Year
$1,415
500 Year
$1,459
Landslide
$1,372
Liquefaction
Moderate
$1,200
High
$1;931
Very High
$56
Fire
Low
$1,111
High
$329
Extreme
$41
4.3.1 Tsunami
4.17.1 Nature of Hazard
The phenomenon we call "tsunami" is a series of traveling ocean waves of extremely long length. generated
primarily by earthquakes occurring below or near the ocean floor. In the deep ocean, the tsunami waves move
across the deep ocean with a speed exceeding 500 miles per hour, and a wave height of only a few inches.
Tsunami waves are distinguished from ordinary ocean waves by their great length between wave crests, often
exceeding 60 miles or more in the deep ocean, and by the time between these crests, ranging from 10 minutes
to an hour.
As they reach the shallow waters of the coast, the waves slow down and the water can pile up into a wall of
dcstruction up to 30 feet or more in height. The effect can be amplified where a bay, harbor or lagoon fimnels
the wave as it moves inland. Large tsunamis have been known to rise over 100 feet. Even a tsunami 1 -3 feet
high can be very destructive and cause many deaths and injuries.
•
user. av, a awns 4 -8 •
• SE011ONFOUR 6iskAssessme ®t
There are many causes of tsunamis, but the most prevalent . is earthquakes. In addition, landslides, volcanic
eruptions, explosions, and even the impact of meteorites can generate tsunamis
. b Jttp /www nrh.noaa govtitidhb%13 /about tsu/fagsl in[
Not all earthquakes generate tsunamis. To generate,a tsunami, the fault where the earthquake occurs must be
underneath or near the ocean, and cause vertical movement of the sea floor over a large area, hundreds or
thousands of square miles. By far the most destructive tsunamis are generated from large, shallow earthquakes
with an epicenter or fault line near or on the ocean floor. The amount of vertical and horizontal motion of the
sea floor, the area over which it occurs, the.simultaneous occurrence of slumping of underwater sediments due
to the shaking, and the efficiency with which energy is transferred from the earth's crust to the ocean water are
all part of the tsunami generation mechanism. The sudden vertical displacements over such large areas disturb
the ocean's surface, displace water, and generate. destructive tsunami waves. Although all .oceanic regions of
the world can experience tsunamis, the most destructive and repeated occurrences of tsunamis are in the
Pacific Rim region .
Tsunami waves can travel at the speed of a commercial jet plane, over 500 miles per hour, moving from one
side of the Pacific Ocean to the other in less than a day. This great speed makes it important to be aware of the
tsunami as soon . as it is generated Scientists can predict when a tsunami will arrive at various locations by
knowing. the, source. characteristics of the earthquake that generated the tsunami and the characteristics of the
sea floor along the path to the shore from the point of origin.
• Offshore and coastal features can determine the size and impact of tsunami waves. Reefs, bays, entrances to
rivers, undersea features and the slope of the beach all modify the tsunami as it converges on the coastline.
People living near areas where large earthquakes occur may find that the tsunami waves can reach their shares
within minutes of the earthquake. For these reasons, the tsunami threat to many areas such, as Alaska, the
Philippines, Japan and the United States West Coast can be immediate (for ,namis from nearby earthquakes
which take only a few minutes to reach coastal areas) or less urgent (for tsunamis from, distant earthquakes
which take from three to 22 hours to reach coastal areas). When a tsunami reaches the coastline and moves
inland, the water level can rise several feet, flooding homes, businesses and. infrastructure from::several
thousand feet to miles inland, depending on the topography.
Scientists cannot accurately predict when earthquakes will occur, and as a result they cannot determine exactly
when a tsunami will be generated or how destructive it Will be. However, past tsunami height measurements
are useful in predicting future tsunami impact and flooding limits at specific coastal locations and
communities.
4.3.1.2 DlsasterHistory
Tsunamis can be categorized as Pacifie -wide or "local." ,Typically, a Pacific -wide tsunami is generated by a
major vertical shift in the ocean floor creating a wave that includes the entire column of water that has the
potential to travel long distances. A "local" tsunami can be a component of a Pacific-wide tsunami in the
immediate area of the earthquake, or a wave that is confined to the area of generation; such as a landslide
within a bay or harbor. Worldwide, tsunamis have resulted in loss of thousands of lives, billions of dollars in
damages, and the closure of many local economies.. .
• ooe� �mso�ws 4-9
SECTIONFQUR RiskAssess>neet •
All of the coastal areas in Orange County are susceptible to tsunamis. Although the majority of tsunamis have
occurred in Northern California, Southern California has been impacted as well. Since 1812, the California
coast has had 14 tsunamis with wave heights higher than three feet; six of these were destructive. The Channel.
Islands were hit by a big tsunami in the early 1800s. In the 19301s, four tsunamis struck the Los Angeles,
Orange County, and San Diego coastal areas. In Orange County the tsunami wave reached heights of
approximately 20. feet above sea level. In 1964, following the Alaska 8.2 earthquake, tidal surges of
approxmately 4 feet to 5 feet battered the Huntington Harbor causing moderate damages.
4.3.1.3 Location and Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
The historic record indicates that there is a low probability of occurrence of a major tsunami in Orange
County. However, smaller scale tsunamis cau have severe impacts on coastal communities. As shown on the
following series of tsunami runt -up maps the entire 43 miles of the County of Orange coastline could be
impacted (Figure 4.3 -1a through 4.3 -If). The Tsunami maps used for the Plan were created by County of
Orange RDMD. The county mapping staff started with the State Office of Emergency Services' Tsunami
Inundation Maps, and expanded upon them to show local knowledge of the topography and water ways.
Approximately 89,000 residents Would have to be evacuated. The impact could cause loss of life, destroy
thousands of high priced homes, greatly affect coastal businesses, and impact tourism. Infrastructure including
highways, secondary roads, bridges, and water and wastewater facilities are also at risk. Damage to water and
wastewater facilities would further exacedmte the disaster by exposing people to disaase and dehydration.
The Tsunami maps provided in this document are provided by the County of Orange Resource and .
Development Management Department. The maps are based on currently available Tsunami inundation maps
from the State office of Emergency Services and then enhanced to project additional inundation: based on local
knowledge of water ways and land development.
4.3.2 ContaminationiSait Water Intrusion
4.3.2:1 Nature of Hazard
When fresh water is withdrawn from aquifers at a faster rate than it can be replenished, a draw down of the
water table occurs with a resulting decrease in the overall hydrostatic pressure. When this happens near an
ocean coastal area, salt water from the ocean can intrude into the fresh water aquifer. The result is that fresh
water supplies become contaminated with salt water.
4.3.2.2 Disaster History
In Orange County, by 1956, years of heavy pumping to sustain the region's agricultural economy had lowered
the water table by 15 -feet below sea level and saltwater from the Pacific Ocean had encroached as far as five
Miles inland. The area of intrusion is primarily across a four-mile front between the cities of Newport Beach
and Huntington Beach known as the Talbert Gap. The mouth of an alluvial fan formed millions of years ago
by the Santa Ana River; the Talbert Gap has Since been buried along the coast by several hundred feet of clay.
Since 1976 the Water Factory 21 Direct Injection Project, operated by OCWD, has been injecting highly
treated recycled water into the aquifer to prevent salt water intrusion, while augmenting the potable
SM 4 -10 •
• SECTIONFOUR Riskassessmetit
•
groundwater supply. In 2006, construction of the Groundwater Replenishment System will replace Water
Factory 21 to expand the seawater barrier program
4.3.13 Location of Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
Massive seawater intrusion has been prevented in Orange County by the.00WD basin management programs.
However, the threat of saltwater intrusion along the coast is still present. To prevent further intrusion and to
provide basin management flexibility, OCWD operates a hydraulic barrier system A series of 23 multi-point
injection wells four miles inland delivers fresh water into the underground aquifers. to form a water mound,
blocking further passage of seawater. Continued injection of recycled water into the aquifer is essential to keep
saltwater from intruding into the groundwater table and contaminating a major source of the county's potable
Water.
4.3.3 DamlReseivoir Failure
4.3.3.1 Nature of Hazard
Dam failures can result from a number of natural or human caused threats such as earthquakes, erosion of the
face or foundation, improper silting; rapidly rising flood waters, malicious events, and structural/design flaws.
Seismic activity can also compromise dam regulating structures, resulting in- catastrophic flooding. A dam
failure can cause loss of life, damage to property, the displacement of persons, and other.ensuing hazards
residing in the inundation path Damage to electric generating facilities and transmission lines could also
impact life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard areas. Mutual Aid from all levels of
government would be required for an extended period of time. Recovery efforts would include the removal of
debris, clearing roadways, demolishing unsafe structures, assistance in reestablishing public services, and
providing continued care and welfare for the affected population including.
There are 33 dams in Orange County with ownership ranging from the Federal government to Home Owners
Associations. These dams hold billions of gallons of water in reservoirs. The major reservoirs are designed to
probed Southern California from flood waters and to store domestic and recycled water. The reservoirs range
in capacity from 18 ra acre feet to 196,235 acre feet of water storage. The following is a list of the larger
reservoirs and dams in Orange County and their OwneWOperaturs:
Name of Facility
Santiago Reservoir (Irvine Lake)
Villa Park Dam
Sulphur Creek Dam
Peters Canyon Dam
Wahurt Canyon Reservoir
San Joaquin Reservoir
Sand Canyon Reservoir
Rattlesnake Canyon Reservoir
Big Canyon Reservoir
Lake Mission Viejo
Owner /Operator
Serrano Water District/Irvine Ranch Water District
County of Orange
County of Orange
County of Orange
City of Anaheim .
Irvine Ranch Water District
Irvine Ranch Water District
Irvine Ranch Water District
City of Newport Beach
Lake Mission Viejo Association
• Um o
ooa.� mw w 4 -11
SECTION FOUR Bisic Aasessmeot
El Toro Reservoir
Rossmoor #2
Orange County Reservoir
Palisades Bradt Reservoir
Portola Reservoir
Syphon Canyon Reservoir
Trabuco Dam & Reservoir
Dove Canyon Dam
Upper Oso Dam
Brea Dam
Fullerton Dam
Carbon Canyon Dam
Prado Dam
El Toro Water District
El Toro Water District
Metropolitan Water District
South Coast Water District
Santa Margarita Water District
The Irvine Company .
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Santa Margarita Water District
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
In addition to reservoirs with dams in Orange County, there are many water storage tanks that are potentially
susceptible to failure or damage by natural or marmnade events. These water tanls'cordain millions of gallons
of water each and provide an important source of water I storage. Their capacity is large enough to effect
substantial damage down slope from a tank should one fail. Correspondingly, the history of failure of water
storage tanks is considered.
4.13.2 DisisterNistory
St Francis Dam. Disaster of 1928
In Los. Angeles the failure of the St Francis Dam, and the resulting loss of over 500 lives was a scandal that
resulted in the almost complete destruction of the reputation of its builder, William Mulholland. It was he who
proposed, designed, and supervised the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct; which brought water from
the Owens Valley to the city: The St. Francis Dam, built in 1926, was 180 feet high and 600 feet long. it was
located near the City of Saugus in San Francisquito Canyon
The dam failed on March 12, 1928 three minutes before midnight Its waters swept through the Santa Clara
Valley toward the Pacific Ocean about 54 miles away. The valley was devastated before the water finally
made its way into the ocean between Oxnard and Ventura. At its peak the wall of water was said to be 78 feet
high. At the time the water flowed through Santa Paula, 42 [piles south of the dam, the water was estimated to
be 25 feet deep. Almost everything in its path was 'destroyed: livestock, structures, railways, bridges, and
orchards. In the end Ventura County lay below 70 feet of mud and damage estimates topped $20 million.
Baldwin Hills Dam Disaster of 1963
The Baldwin Hills Dais collapse sent -a 50 -foot wall of water down Cloverdale Avenue on Dec. 14, 1963. Five
people were killed. Sixty -five hillside houses were ripped apart, and 210 homes and apartments were daniaged.
The flood swept northward in a V- shaped path roughly bounded by La Brea Avenue, Jefferson Boulevard, and
La Ciehega Boulevard.
a o,a:�,N,woare 4 -12
J
0 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment
The earthen dam that created a 19 -acre reservoir to supply drinking water to West Los Angeles residents
ruptured at 3:38 p.m A pencil thin crack widened to a 75 foot gash allowing 292 million gallons to surge out
in 77 minutes. The cascade caused an unexpected ripple effect that is still being felt in Los Angeles and .
beyond. It prompted the end of urban -area earthen dams as a major element of water storage systems, and a
tightening of the Division of Safety of Dams control over reservoirs throughout the state.
Westminster Water Tank Failure. Disaster of 1998
In September of 1998, a 5 million gallon municipal water storage unit in the City of Westminster failed almost
30 years after its construction due to corrosion and construction defects. There was no loss of life, but damage
was extensive. The flow of water from the tank destroyed most of the facility as well as several private
residences. Additionally, there were approximately 30 more homes inundated with water and silt. Through the
Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement the County of Orange Public Works Department assisted the City of
Westminster In the clean up and temporary repair of the streets.
City employees, the Orange County Fire Authority, neighboring fire services, and the Red Cross were on -site
for days assessing the damage and assisting residents. Water storage for the City was non - existent following
this event while a twin storage tank was emptied until the cause of the.tank failure was, determined
Two new eight million gallon water storage tanks, a 17 million, gallon. per day booster station; and a new
groundwater well were constructed. All new construction has passed rigorous State Department of Health
• Services inspection and permitting.
4.3.3.3 Location of Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
Loss of life and damage to structures, roads, and utilities may result from a dam failure. Economic losses can
also result. These effects would certainly accompany the failure of any one of the major reservoirs with a dam
or storage tanks in the County of Orange. Because dam failure can have severe consequences, FEMA and the
California Office.of Emergency Services require all dam owners develop Emergency Action Plans (EAP) for
warning, evacuation, and post -flood actions. Although there has been extensive coordination with County
officials in the development of a County Response Plan, the responsibility for developing potential flood
Inundation maps and facilitation of emergency response is the responsibility of the dam owner. For more
detailed information regarding dam failure flooding, and. potential flood inundation zones for a particular dam
in the County, refer to the County of Orange, Operational Area Emergency Action Plan Dam/Reservoir Failure
Annex.
Reservoirs with Dams Impacting the PWU
Big Canyon Reservoir is a 600 acre foot potable water storage facility constructed in 1959 and owned by the
City of Newport Beach. It is located in the San Joaquin. Hills overlooking Newport Bay. Big Canyon Reservoir
is retained on three sides by a homogenous earth filled embankment dam, while the east side was farmed by a
slope cut. At its maximum section the dam embankment is 65 feet high,. The spillway is an ungated concrete
lined overflow structure located on the west side of the reservoir. The bottom of the reservoir and the cut
• DOCMUeiV.o 443
SECTION FOUR RISK AsaesMS
slopes are lined with minimum 5 foot thick clay blanket,. and the entire inside surface, including the
embankments and cut slopes, is overlain with a three inch thick porous asphalt pavement
El Toro Reservoir is an earth -filled dam owned by the ETWD. The impounded reservoir has a storage
capacity of about 850 'acre -feet with a surface area of approximately 20.6 acres. The reservoir is presently
being used for operational and emergency storage for the ETWD, Santa Margarita Water District and Moulton
Niguel Water District.
ETWD also owns' and operates Rossmoor #2 a damheservoir also known as the Water Recycling Effluent
Holding Pond If problems occur at either location, operations personnel at the El Toro Water District who will
notify the Sheriffs Department Control One of dam failure or possible darn failure.
Palisades Bradt Reservoir provides up to 48 million gallons of potable water storage with a 146 foot high,
zoned, earthen embankment dam constructed in 1963. The bottom and internal slopes of the reservoir are lined
and the reservoir surface has a floating cover. The dam has a lowlevel outlet, an emergency outlet, and an
emergency spillway. The upstream watershed that contributes inflow to the reservoir has an area. of 19 apes.
Peters Carnon Dam is an earth -filled structure owned by the County of Orange and has 'a capacity of 626 acre
feet at the spillway pipe elevation of 537 feet MSL. Water storage varies from 200 acre feet to 600 acre feet
depending on seasonal rain amounts. Alerting would come primarily from the Park Ranger at Peters Canyon
Regional Park who would notify the Sheriff Department, Control One of dam failure or possible dart failure.
Peado Dam is owned and operated by the Army Corps of Engineers, and was constructed for the primary •
purpose of providing protection from floods for Orange County, California. Installation of the Seven Oaks
Dam in San Bernardino County has lessened the potential likelihood of a Prado Dam' failure due to upper
Santa Ana River flooding.
Portola Dam is located near the northern end of Canada Gobemadora in southern Orange County; within the
Coto de Caza gated community. Canada Gobernadera flows north to south and confluences with -San Juan
Creek approximately 7.5 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean. Portola Dam is an earth -filled structure situated
about 8 miles north of San Juan Creek with a maximum recycled water (or domestic water blend) storage
capacity of 586 AP and a high water elevation of 936 feet An inundation study and compliance report for
Portola Dam was done in 1980 to allow construction permitting by the State of California. This study
indicated that if the dam was breached, a potential maximum flow rate of 22,645 CFS may be expected after
about three hours once the reservoir level drops to half -fidt or when the water surface elevation is at elevation
920 feet Should such an event occur, Portola Dam would potentially empty in just over six hours.
The Canada Goberoadcra valley channel area between the dam and San Juan Creek has been developed with a
golf course and lined. on each side by thousands of homes positioned just at or above the 100 year flood plaid
If a dam break occurred, the flow would likely destroy streets crossing the flood plain, damage the water,
sewer and recycled water pipeline infrastructure in them and may also affect some or many home locations
near the stream channel. Streets in Coto de Caza certain to be affected are: Trigo Trail, Via Pajaro, Via
Conejo, Vista Del Verde, San Miguel, Cantamar and South Bend Road Along with the golf course and the
equestrian center, additional District facilities that are anticipated to be damaged or destroyed by a dam break
in Coto de Caza and farther down stream are: •
ewer. w„aanos 4-14
J
SECTION FOUR RistAssessment
• Coto Lift Station and force main
• South Ranch lift station and force main
• South County pipeline
• Ortega Lift Station (Talega) force mains
• Talega recycled water transmission main
• Chiquita Land OutfaU pipeline
Per the compliance report, after entering San Juan Creek, the dam break inundation flood area would be about
the same as the 100 -year flood plain all the way down to the Pacific Ocean.
Santiago Dam is an earth fill dam with a 25,000 acre-feet capacity reservoir (Irvine Lake). The dam is jointly
owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District and the Serrano Water District. Villa Park Dam is a flood control
dam located downstream from Santiago Dam. It is an earth -fill structure with a capacity of 15,600 acre-feet
and is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. Initial alerting is expected from Dam keepers who
are on duty at both Santiago Dam and Villa Park Dam.
UUper Oso Reservoir (UOR) and Dam are located within the Cities of Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa
Margarita near the northern end of the Oso Creek watershed in southern Orange County. Upper Oso Dam is
an earth -filled stricture situated between El Toro Road and Los Alisos Boulevard nearly 10 miles north of the
Trabuco Creek confluence point. UOR has a high water elevation of 953 feet and stores up to 4000 acre feet
of recycled water for landscape irrigation that is mainly used within Santa Margarita and Moulton Niguel
Water Districts. A compliance analysis and inundation study report was prepared for Upper Oso bam m 1979
to allow for construction permitting liy the State of California. This study indicated. that if the dam was
breached, a potential maximum flow rate exceeding 250,000 cubic feet per second may be expected.when the
water surface elevation drops to about elevation 935 feet. Should such an event occur, UOR could potentially
empty in about a half hour.
Immediately downstream of the UOR dam, a long bridge for State Route 241 crosses the flood channel and
may not experience problems during a major flood event. Just upstream of Los Alison Boulevard, some
commercial property lies adjacent to the Oso Creek channel and may be affected. About three miles down
stream on Oso Creek and upstream of Olympiad Road, a large basin area was created (now a sports park). to
capture and attenuate major discharges from UOR before they entered Lake Mission Viejo (LMV). LMV is
created by a dam lying under Alicia Parkway. A UOR dam breach may also overflow Lake Mission Viejo and
damage the dam to point where it could release stored water and create a catastrophic flood hazard all the way
to the Pacific Ocean.
Downstream of LMV, two golf courses have been developed within the Oso Creek channel area and numerous
commercial properties are on adjacent sides. Housing tracts have been built above the 100 year flood plain but
if a dam break occurred, the flow from UOR and LMV would likely destroy streets crossing the flood plain
and damage the water, sewer and recycled water pipeline infrastructure in them. In addition to the many
pipelines crossing the flood plain, District facilities that are anticipated to be damaged or destroyed by a UOR
dam break are:
• ooa.�•i,aoceaa 4 -15
SECTION FOUR RISRASSesSment •
• Eastbrook Rw Pump Station
• Lakeside Pump Station
• South County Pipeline
• Oso Creek Water Reclamation Plant
• Oso Creek Trunk Sewer
• Oso Barrier RW Pump Station and Pipelines
Due to proximity and elevation, a significant number of the residential and commercial properties in marry
areas close to the banks of Oso Creek and farther downstream would likely be flooded for short period of time
and damaged. Streets in Whsion Viejo and farther south likely to be affected by a dam failure are: Los Alisos
Boulevard, Santa Margarita Parkway, Olympiad Road, Alicia Parkway, Jeronimo Road, Marguerite Parkway,
Casta del Sol, La Paz Road, Oso Parkway, Interstate 5, Camino Capistrano, Del Obispo Street, Stonehill Drive
and Pacific Coast Highway.
4:3.4 DroughMxtreme Heat
4.3.4.1 Nature of Hazard
Many governmental utilities, the National - Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the
California Department of Water Resources, as well as academic institutions, :such as the University of
Nebraska - Lincoln's National Drought Mitigation Center and the National Drought. Mitigation Center,
generally agree that there is no clear definition of drought. Drought is highly variable depending in what part
of a state, the country or globe one is situated.
Drought in its simplest definition is an extremely dry climatic period where the available water falls.below a
statistieal average for a particular region. Drought is also defined by factors other than rainfall, including:
vegetation conditions, agricultural productivity, soil moisture, water levels in reservoirs and stream flow. In .
effect, there are essentially three forms of drought: meteorological drought,.. agricultural drought, and
hydrologic drought A meteorological drought is typically defined when there is a prolonged period of less
than average precipitation. An agricultural drought occurs when there is. insufficient moisture for an average
crop yield. Agricultural drought can be caused by the overuse of groundwater, poor, management of cultivated
fields, as well as lack of precipitation. Hydrologic drought.occurs when the water level in aquifers, lakes or
above ground storage reservoirs fall below sustainable levels. A significant percentage of water in Southern
California is imported from other regions (Colorado River and Northern California) via aqueducts.
Correspondingly drought in California can be made worse by water availability conditions in the regions at
which the water originates.
4.3.4.2 DlsasterHistoty
A significant drought, reported by many of the ranchers in southern California, occurred in 1860.
o�neoare 4 -16 •
• SECTION FOUR. B1skAssessment
The great drought of the 1930s, coined the "Dust Bowl; , was geographically centered in the Great Plains yet
ultimately affected water shortages in California. The drought conditions in the plains resulted in a large influx
of people to the west coast. Approximately 350,000 people from Arkansas and Oklahoma immigrated mainly
to the Great Valley of California. As more people moved into California, including Orange County increases
in intensive agriculture led to overuse of Santa Ana River watershed and groundwater resulting in regional
water shortages.
Several bills have been introduced into Congress in an effort to mitigate the effects of drought. In 1998,
President Clinton signed into law the National Drought Policy Act, which called for the development of a
national drought policy or framework that integrates actions and responsibilities among all levels of
government. In addition it established the National Drought Policy Commission to provide advice and
recommendations on the creation of an integrated federal policy. The most recent bill introduced into Congress
was the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2003, which established a comprehensive national drought
policy and statutorily authorized a lead federal utility for drought assistance. Currently there exists only an ad-
hoc response approach to drought unlike other disasters (e g., hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes) which are
under the purview.of FFMA.
4.3.4.3 Location of Went/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
Of the many.varied indexes used to measure drought, the "Palmer Drought Severity Index" (PDSI) is the most
commonly used_ drought index in the United States. Developed by meteorologist, Wayne.Palmer, the PDSI is
used to measure_ dryness based. on recent temperature compared to the amount of precipitation. It utilizes a
number range, 0 as normal, drought shown in terms of minis numbers, and wetness shown in positive numbers
(Table 4.3.4.3 -1� The PDSI is most effective at analyzing long -range drought forecasts or predications. Thus,
the:PDSI is very effective at evaluation trends in the severity and frequency of prolonged periods of drought,
and conversely wet weather. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).pubUsh weekly
Palmer maps, which are also used by other scientists to analyze the long -term trends associated with global
warming and how this has affected drought conditions
Table 4.3.4.3 -1
Palmer Drought Severity Index
4.0 or less (E)treme Drought)
+20 or +29 (Unusual Moist Spen)
-3.0 or-3.9 (Severe Drought)
+3.0 or +3.9 (Very Moist Spell)
-2.0 or -29 (Moderate Drought)
+4.0 or above (E)Veiney Moist)
-1.9 to +1.9 (Near Normal)
The. University of Nebraska-Lincoln has published many of these Palmer Drought Index maps analyzing
trends over the past one hundred years .(National Drought Mitigation Center 2005; Figure 1). In coastal
southern California, from 1895 to 1995, severe droughts occurred 10 to 15 percent of the time. From 1990 to
1995, severe droughts occurred 10 to 20 percent of the time and as recently as 1989, a severe drought was
documented that lasted for six years. More recently, between 1999 and 2004, a six-year drought on the
• oowoaK�wo�tos 4 -17
SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment •
Colorado River basin has resulted in a draw down of Colorado River water storage by more than 50 %. Based
on these trends, severe droughts can readily occur in southern California. According to the California Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), the current drought in southern California has caused extensive
devastation to forests in the mountains of San Bernardino, San Jacinto and Palomar Mountains. Drought
weakens trees which make them susceptible to infestation by bark-beetles. In turn dry vegetation and beetle
infested trees are more susceptible to fire than healthy forests.
4.3.5 Earthquake/Liquefaction
4.3.5.1 Nature of Hazard - Earthquakes
Earthquakes are considered a major threat to the County, especially when focusing on water and wastewater
facilities and pipelines that run throughout the County. A significant earthquake along one of the major faults .
could cause substantial casualties, wensive ' damage to infrastructure, fires, and other threats to life and
property. Significant damages and outages of water and wastewater facilities could also occur. The effects
could be aggravated by aftershocks and by secondary effects such as fire, landslides and dam failure. A major
earthquake could be catastrophic in its effects on the population, and could exceed the response capability of
the local communities and even the State.
Following major earthquakes, extensive search and rescue operations may be required to assist trapped or
injured persons. Emergency medical care, food/water and temporary shelter would be required for injured or •
displaced persons. In the event of a truly catastrophic earthquake identification and burial of the dead would
pose difficult problems. Mass evacuation may be essential to save lives. Emergency operations could be
seriously hampered by the loss of communications, damage to transportation routes within, to, and out of the
disaster area, and by the disruption of public utilities and services. With damage to critical water and
wastewater infrastructure there will be significant public health concerns, such as dehydration or exposure to'
Contaminated water, and the potential for reduced fire protection due to water flow. Facilities at greatest risk
from severe earthquakes are dams and pipelines. Additionally, damage to water and sewer lines that service
commercial and industrial areas could have a significant impact on the economy of the region.
Extensive mutual aid for an Wended period of time may be required to bring water and wastewater services
back online. Large &alts that could affect Orange County include the Elsinore Fault, the Newport- Inglewood
Fault, the Peralta Fault, the Puente Hills Fault, the San Andreas Fault, the San Jacinto Fault, and the Whittier
Fault. Smaller faults include the Norwalk Fault and the El Modena Faults (Figure 4.3 -2). In addition, newly
studied thrust &alts, such as the San Joaquin Hills Fault and the Puente Hills Fault could also have a
significant impact on the County. Each of the major fault systems are described briefly below and are
presented in alphabetical order. This order does not place more danger on one fault over another, it is simply
for organizational purposes.
Elsinore Fault Zone: Located in the northeast part of the county, this fault follows a general line easterly of
the Santa Ana Mountains into Mexico. The main trace of the Elsinore, Fault zone is about 112 miles long. The
.last major earthquake on this fault occurred in 1910 (M 6.0), and the interval between moor ruptures is
estimated to be about 250. years. SCEC reports probable earthquake magnitudes for the main trace of the
Elsinore &Alt to be in the range of 6.5 to 7.5. At the northern end of the Elsinore Fault zone, the fault splits
into two segments: the 25 mile long Whittier Fault (probable magnitudes between 6.0 and 7.2), and the 25 mile
c,w�,,,aaFOS 4 -18
• SECTION FOUR MISRAssessnlent
•
C�
J
long Chino Fault (probable magnitudes between 6.0 and 7A). The location of the.Whittier Fault makes it
especially critical to the Dlemer, Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda and pipelines hringing. water into
Orange County which is located very near to the fault.
Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone: Extends from the Santa Monica Mountains in a South East direction
through the western part of Orange County through the City of Newport Beach and slightly offshore the city's
boundaries and was the source of the destructive 1933 Long Beach earthquake (magnitude 6.4), which caused
120 deaths and considerable property damage. During the past 60 years, numerous after shocks ranging from
magnitude 3.0 to 5+ have been recorded SCEC reports probable earthquake magnitudes for the Newport-
Inglewood fault to be in the range of 6.0 to 7.4.
Peralta Hills Fault: Only limited information is available to paleoseismically characterize the fault. No
studies have been undertaken to determine the timing of earthquakes. There is a strong geomorphic expression
along Lincoln Blvd west of Tustin Ave in the City of Orange. Some believe the fault is not active while others
believe it is active. On -going research has linked the fault as a back thrust with the Elsinore fault, with a
potential magnitude of (M6.8)7
Puente Hilts Thrust Fault: This is another recently discovered blind thrust fault that runs from northern
Orange County to downtown Los Angeles. This fault is now known to be the source of the 1987 Whittier
Narmws earthquake. Recent studies indicate that this fault has experienced four mayor earthquakes ranging in
Magnitude from 7.2 to 7.5 in the past 11,000 years, but that the recurrence interval for these large events is on
the order of several thousand years.
San Andreas Fault Zone: As the dominant active fault in California ihis.the main element of the boundary
between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. The longest and most publicized fault in California,
it extends approximately 650 miles from Cape Mendocino in northern California to east of San Bernardino in
southern California, and is approximately 35 miles northeast of Orange County. This fault was the source of
the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which res6lted in some 700 deaths and millions of dollars in damage.. It is
the southern section of this fault that is currently of greatest concern to the scientific; community. Geologists
can demonstrate that at least eight major earthquakes (Richter Magnitude 7.0 and larger) have occurred along
the Southern San Andreas Fault in the past 1200 years with an average spacing in time of 140 years, phis or
Minus 30 years. The last such event occurred in 1857 (Fort Tejon earthquake). Based on that evidence and
other geophysical observations, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (SCEC;1995)'has
estimated the probability of a similar rupture (M 7.8) in the next 30 years (1994 through 2024) to beabout
50% The range of probable magnitudes on the San Andreas Fault Zone is reported to be 6.8 - 8.0.
San Jacinto Fault Zone: Located approximately 30 miles north and east of the county. The interval between
ruptures on this 130 mile long fault zone has been estimated by SCEC to be between 100 and 300 years, per
segment. The most recent, event (1968 M6.5) occurred on the southern half of the Coyote Credo segment.
SCEC reports probable earthquake magnitudes for the San Jacinto fault zone to be in the range of 6.5 to 7.5.
San. Joaquin Hills Fault: A recently discovered southwest- dipping blind thrust fault originating near the
southern end of the Newport- Inglewood Fault close to Huntington Beach, at the western margins of the San
Joaquin Hills. Rupture of the entire area of this blind thrust fault could generate an earthquake as large as M
osa.�>a+woaae 4 -19
0
SECTION FOUR
0
Risk Assessment •
7.3. In addition, a minimum average recurrence interval of between about 1650 and 3100 years has been
estimated for moderate -sized earthquakes on this fault (Grant and others, 1999).
In addition to the major faults described above the rupture of a number of smaller faults could potentially
impact Orange County, including the Norwalk Fault (located in the north of the county in the Fullerton area)
and the El Modena Fault (located in the City of Orange area).
As indicated, there are a large variety of earthquake events that could affect Orange County. (The earliest
recorded earthquake in California occurred in Orange County in 1769.) Predicted ground shaking patterns
throughout Southern California for hypothetical scenario earthquakes are available from the United States
Geological Survey as part of their on -going "ShakeMap" program. These maps are provided in terms of
Instrumental Intensity, which is essentially Modified Mercalli Intensity estimated from instrumental ground
motion recordings. ShakeMaps in graphical and GIS formats are available on the USGS website at:
httpJ/ earthquake. usgs, gov/ shakemap /sc/shake/archivdscenario html. In addition, MWDOC hired Earth
Consultants International to prepare specific ground acceleration and shaking maps for five fault earthquake
scenarios in Orange County. The maps are included in Section 4.4.2.1 in the discussion of earthquake impacts
to water agencies.
Table 4.3.5 -I summarizes the characteristics of the important geologic faults in Orange County.
Table 4.3.5.1.1 -1
Characteristics of Imported Geologic Faults in Orange County, CA •
(1) The magnitude shown represents the fault's average behavior. Reference: "Five Earthquake Scenarios
Ground Motion Maps for Northern Orange County" prepared for Municipal Water District of Orange County
by Earth Consultants International, July 22, 2005. •
URS 4 -20
v4 x.StA, �
Unknown,
1 1
t I
1
ob.
®®
2,200-3,900
•
1
•11 11
11
� ��''�l4 xY
•
•
111
11 11
•11 111
(1) The magnitude shown represents the fault's average behavior. Reference: "Five Earthquake Scenarios
Ground Motion Maps for Northern Orange County" prepared for Municipal Water District of Orange County
by Earth Consultants International, July 22, 2005. •
URS 4 -20
• SECTIONFOUR RiskAsseasment
Earthquake as a Threat to the County of Orange
The most recent significant earthquake event affecting southern California was the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake. At 431 A.M. on Monday, January 17, a moderate, but very damaging earthquake with 'a
magnitude of 6.7 struck the San Fernando Valley. In the following days and weeks, thousands of aftershocks
occurred, causing additional damage to affected structures. In this earthquake,. 57 people were killed and more
than 1,500 people seriously injured.' For days afterward, thousands of homes and:businesses were without
electricity, tens of thousands had no gas, and nearly 50,000 had little or no water. Out of the approximately
66,000 structures inspected approximately 15,000 structures were moderately to severely damaged, which left
thousands of people temporarily homeless. Several collapsed bridges and overpasses created commuter havoc
on the freeway system Extensive damage was caused by ground .shaking, but earthquake triggered
liquefaction and dozens of fires also caused additional severe damage. The extremely strong ground motion
felt in large portions of Los Angeles County resulted in record economic losses. The fact that the earthquake
occurred early in the morning on a holiday considerably reduced the potential effects.. Many collapsed
buildings were unoccupied, and most businesses were not yet open. The direct and indirect economic losses
ran into the tens of billions of dollars.
For decades, partnerships have flourished between the USGS, Cal Tech, the California Geological Survey and
• California universities to share research and educational efforts with Californians: Tremendous earthquake
mapping and mitigation efforts have been made in California in the past two decades, and public awareness
has risen remarkably during this time. Major federal, state, and local government utilities and private
organizations support earthquake risk reduction These partners have made significant contributions in
reducing the adverse impacts of earthquakes.
4.3.5.2 Earthquake History
Southern California and Orange County have experienced several powerful earthquakes. To better understand
the potential for damaging earthquakes in southern California, the scientific community reviewed
historical records and conducted extensive research on faults that are the sources of the earthquakes occurring
In southern California. Historical earthquake records can generally be divided into records of the pre -
instrumental period and the instrumental period. in the absence of instrumentation, historic records of past
earthquakes are based on observations and the level of information is often dependent upon population density
in the area of the earthquake. Since California was sparsely populated in the 1800s, detailed information on
pre-instrumental earthquakes is relatively sparse. However, two very large' earthquakes, the Fort Tejon in
1857 (7.9) and the Owens Valley in 1872 (7.6) are evidence of the tremendously damaging potential of
earthquakes in southern California. Other notable earthquakes that have impacted southern California include
the 1910 Glen Ivy Hot Springs earthquake (Els' Mor e.Fault Zone, M 6.0), the 1933 Long Beach earthquake
(Newport Inglewood Fault Zone,' M 6.4), the 1952 Kern County and Lander earthquakes (M 7.3), the 1971
San Fernando earthquake (San Fernando Fault Zone, M 6.6), the 1987 Whittier earthquake (Whittier :Fault
Zone, M 5.91 and the 1994 Northridge earthquake (Pico Thrust, M 6.7). The 1987 Whittier Quake caused
damage to the Puente Hills Reservoir in La Habra and after inspection the reservoir was found to have cracks
in the concrete lining.
ooa nm ZA)� 4 -21
SECTION FOUR 61skAssessmef •
Damage from some of these earthquakes was limited because they occurred in areas which were sparsely
populated at the time they occurred. However, developed areas were much more severely affected. The
economic losses from the 1933 Long Beach earthquake were estimated at $40 million in damage; and 115
lives were lost. The seismic risk is much more severe today than in the past because the population at risk is in
the millions, rather than a few hundred or a few thousand persons. Earthquakes of great magnitudes have
caused lasting effects in developed regions.
Clearly, no community in southern California is beyond the reach of a damaging earthquake. The historical
earthquake events that have affected southern California are listed below in Table 4.3.5.3 -1 (County of Orange
2004:99 -115; URS 2004:4 -15).
Table 4.3.5.3 -1
Partial List of Earthquake Events in the Southern California Region
Southern Calfomia Region Earthquakes with a Magnitude 5.0 or Greater
1769 Los Angeles Basin (M 6.0)
1916 Tejon Pass Region (M 5.3)
1800 San Diego Region (M 6.5)
1918 San Jacinto (M 6.9)
1812 Wdghtwood (M 7.0)
1923 San Bernardino Region (M 6.9) .
1812 Santa Barbara Channel (M 7.0)
1925 Santa Barbara (M 6.3)
1827 Los Angeles Region (M 5.5)
1933 Long Beach (M 6.3).
1855 Los Angeles Region (M 6.0)
1941 Carpentaria (M 5.9)„ ,.
1857 Great Fort Tejon Earthquake (M U)
1952 Kern County (M 7.7)
1858 San Bernardino Region (M.6.0)
1954 West of.Wheeler Ridge (M 5.9)
1862 San Diego Regan (M 6.0)
1971 San Femardo (M 6.5)
1892 San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault (M 6.5)
1973 Point Mugu.(M 5.2) .
1893 Pao Canyon (M 5.8)
1986 North Pakn Springs (M 6.0)
1894 Lytle Creek Region (M 6.0)
1987 Whiltier Narrows (M 5.8)
1894 E. of San Diego (M 5.8)
1992 Landers (M 7.3)'
1899 Lytle Credo Region (M 5.8)
1992131g Beer (M 6.2)
1899 San Jacinto and Hemet (M 6.4)
1994 Northridge (M 6.7)
1907 San'Bemardino Region (M 5.3)
1999 Hector Mine (M 7.1)
1910 Glen Ivy Hot Springs (M 6.5)
2004 San Luis Obispo (M unknown)
4.3.5.3 Location of Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
A Southern California Earthquake Center report(SCEC, 1995) indicated that the probability of an earthquake
of Magnitude 7 or larger in southern California before the year 2024 is 80 to 90 percent. The SCEC And the
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities also determined the prospect of a significant
earthquake along the region's major faults:
•
omam %4am 4 -22 •
i SECTION FOUR RiskAssesoent
Elsinore Fault Zone: SCEC reports probable earthquake Magnitudes for the main trace of the
Elsinore fault to be in the range of 6.5 to 7.5. The two northern segments, the Whittier Fault and the
Chino Fault, have probable Magnitudes of 6.0 - 7.2 and 6.0 - 7.0, respectively. The Whittier Fault
location is extremely critical because it crosses the two stain sources of untreated water being brought
into the County (Yorba Linda Feeder and the Lower Feeder) and it passes very close to the Diemer
Filtration Plant which serves as the treatment facility for the bulk. of Orange County. MET does not
have a back up system to supply treated water to marry parts of central and southern Orange County in
the event of an outage of the Diemen Plant.
• Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone: SCEC reports probable earthquake Magnitudes for the Newport -
Inglewood fault to be in the range of 6.0 to 7.4.
• Puente Hills Thrust Fault: Recent studies indicate that this fault has experienced four major
earthquakes ranging. in Magnitude from 7.2 to 7.5 in the past 11,000 years, but that the recurrence
interval for these large events is on the order of several thousand years.
• Peralta Hills Fault: The Earth Consultants International study for MWDOC indicates that this may be
a back thrust fault to the Elsinore fault and may be capable of a M6.8.
• San Andreas Vault Zone.- Based on that evidence and other geophysical obsevation% the fault has
estimated the probability of a rupture with an M 7.8 in the nett 30 years (1994 through 2024) to be
about 50 01e. (SCEC, 1995) The range of probable Magnitudes on the San Andreas Fault Zone during
this period is reported to be 6.8 - 8.0.
• • .San Joaquin'Iiills Fault: Recent reports,have determined that the blind thrust fault can generate an
earthquake.as large as.M 7.3. In addition, a minimum average recurrence interval of 1650 to 3100
years has been estimated for moderate -sized earthquakes on this fault.
• Saxe Jacinto Fault Zone: SCEC reports probable earthquake Magnitudes for the San Jacinto fault
zone to be in the range of 6.5 to 7.5.
Although the San Andreas Fault Zone is capable of producing an earthquake with a magnitude of 8+ on the
Richter scale, some of the smaller faults have the _potential to inflict greater damage on the urban core of the
Los Angeles Basin. Seismologists believe that a 6.0 earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone would
result in far more death and destruction than a larger earthquake on the San Andreas Fault Zane, due to the San
Andreas' relatively remote location from the urban centers of southern California. From a water system
perspective, either the Whittier Fault, if it affects the supply coming into the County from MET, or the Puente
Hills Fault has the potential to interrupt the largest number of pipelines and well supplies in the County.
The areas of Orange County most susceptible.to damage from earthquakes based on the URS prepared shaking
Intensity hazard map includes Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel,
Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano. These communities can be
severely impacted by landslides, liquefaction, extensive infrastructure damage, fire, dam failure, and other
secondary earthquake affects.. A major earthquake could be catastrophic in its effect on the population, and
could exceed the response capability of the local communities and even the State.
• o•,.�e.,woaa 4 -23
SECTION FOUR
Uquefacilon
Nature of Hazard
RiskAssessMMnt •
Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking causes loose soils to lose strength and act
like viscous fluid Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength
Lateral spreads develop on gentle slopes and entails the sidelong movement of large masses of soil as an
underlying layer liquefies. Loss of bearing strength results when the soil supporting structures liquefies and
causes structures to collapse.
Liquefaction Disaster History
The California Department of Conservation (CDC) performed a study of areas susceptible to liquefaction in
Orange County. The study was based on historic occurrences of liquefaction, such as damage to the King
Harbor area of Redondo Beach during the Northridge earthquake of 1994, as well as shake models of the
numerous faults in the County in conjunction with an evaluation of soils that are susceptible to liquefaction.
Historic accounts of damage to structures from liquefaction are not readily available. However, the study
conducted by the CDC found several areas in the County to be at risk to liquefaction
Liquefaction - Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
Recognizing active faults in the region, and the presence of geologically.young, unconsolidated sediments and •.
hydraulic fills; the potential for liquefaction to occur has been long recognized in the Orange County area. The
CDC study determined that the most extensive liquefaction zones occur along the Santa Ana River; including
along the Santa Ana River at Feathery Regional Park, the Green River Golf Course in East Anaheim, Weir
Canyon Road south of the Riverside Freeway, Santiago Creek, Santiago Reservoir (Irvine Lake), and in Irvine
Park and Fremont Canyon In the El Toro area liquefaction zones exist along Altso, Serrano,.Oso, Santiago
and San Diego creeks, as well as in Borrego Canyon and to some areas north and east of the Marine Corps Air
Station.
Areas in Tustin susceptible to liquefaction include all areas north of the Irvine boundary to approkimately
Chestnut Avenue, and from Irvine Boulevard at Browning Avenue west to the Santa Ana boundary. Santa Ana
is affected from Flower Street east to the Tustin city boundary, from First Street south to the San Diego
Freeway. The potential exists in areas of loose soils and/or shallow groundwater in earthquake fault zones
throughout the County. Figure 4.3.6 displays the location and extent of areas with a risk of liquefaction.
Data used to profile liquefaction hazard included probabilistic Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) data from the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and a Scenario Earthquake Shake map for faults in Orange County
along with existing liquefaction hazard areas from local maps. Liquefaction hazards were modeled as
collateral damages of earthquakes using HAZUS -MH, which uses base information and NEHRP soils data to
derive probabilistic peak ground accelerations ranch like the PGA map from USGS. Soils were considered
because liquefaction risk may be amplified depending on the type of soil found in a given area The National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program ( NEHRP) rates soils from hard to soft utilizing ratings from Type A
through Type E. The hardest soils being Type' A and the softest soils rated at Type E. Liquefaction risk was
considered high if there were soft soils (Types D or E) present within an active fault zone. Liquefaction risk
oa.�� +�oaas 4 -24
0
•
•
SECTION FOUR Btsk Assii ssmem
was considered low if the PGA risk value was less than 0.3, and hard soils were present (Types A-C). For
example, an area may lie in a PGA zone of 0.2, which would be a low liquefaction risk in hard soils identified
by the NEHRP. However, if that same PGA value is found within a soft soil such as Type D or E, a PGA of
0.2, when multiplied by 1.4 or 1.7 (amplification values for type D and E soil, shown below), would become a
PGA value of at least 0.28 to 0.3. This would increase the liquefaction risk to high. Areas where soil types D
or E are located are illustrated in Figure 4.3.6.
Soil Amplification Factors
4.3.6 Expansive Soils
4.3.61 Nature of Hazard
According to a scientific papa published in the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (Day 1994), "expansive
soil is a worldwide problem that causes extensive damage to civil engineering structures. ". Expansive soils are
particularly problematic in the southwestern United States and especially in southern California where "there
exists large clay deposits compounded by "alternating periods of rainfall and drought." In essence; the problem
With constructing on expansive soils is that the clay; often times referred tows adobe, expands rapidly during
the* rainy. season and contracts gradually during the dry season causing "shrink- swell." Shrhik -swell is
particularly problematic for "slab -on- grade" foundations which can be placed directly on expansive soil which
are constantly in a state of movement as the soil expands and contracts causing the foundation to fatigue and
crack Buildings with balloon frame construction are also susceptible to bowing and cracking when built on
expansive soils. Shrink and swell can affect water/wasomater facilities particularly buildings or structures
built using slab on grade or balloon frame construction techniques. .
Expansive soil is also known to "creep" on unstable slopes eventually leading to landslides. Typically, this is
found when expansive soil underlies compact topsoil. As the expansive soil expands- contracts,. the compact
topsoil slides or creeps downhill. Facilities built on unstable slopes with underlying expansive soils are prone
to movement and can be damaged or completely destroyed in extreme circumstances.
4.3.62 DisasterHistory
In 1980, Krohn and Slosson ( 1980) made an assessment and cost estimate of the damage caused by expansive
soils throughout the United States. They estimated that approximately $7 billion in property damage was
.reportedly attributed to construction on expansive soils. While no recent figures have been identified, the
increase in construction activity in areas of expansive soil, especially in southern California, will undoubtedly
E:t,s i
oaa...m*,Dmm 4 -25
Soil Type
PGA
A
8
C
D
I E
0.1
0.80
1.00
120
00
2.50
0.2
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.70
0.3
0.80
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.20
0.4 10.80
1.00
1.00
1.10
0.90
0.5
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
4.3.6 Expansive Soils
4.3.61 Nature of Hazard
According to a scientific papa published in the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (Day 1994), "expansive
soil is a worldwide problem that causes extensive damage to civil engineering structures. ". Expansive soils are
particularly problematic in the southwestern United States and especially in southern California where "there
exists large clay deposits compounded by "alternating periods of rainfall and drought." In essence; the problem
With constructing on expansive soils is that the clay; often times referred tows adobe, expands rapidly during
the* rainy. season and contracts gradually during the dry season causing "shrink- swell." Shrhik -swell is
particularly problematic for "slab -on- grade" foundations which can be placed directly on expansive soil which
are constantly in a state of movement as the soil expands and contracts causing the foundation to fatigue and
crack Buildings with balloon frame construction are also susceptible to bowing and cracking when built on
expansive soils. Shrink and swell can affect water/wasomater facilities particularly buildings or structures
built using slab on grade or balloon frame construction techniques. .
Expansive soil is also known to "creep" on unstable slopes eventually leading to landslides. Typically, this is
found when expansive soil underlies compact topsoil. As the expansive soil expands- contracts,. the compact
topsoil slides or creeps downhill. Facilities built on unstable slopes with underlying expansive soils are prone
to movement and can be damaged or completely destroyed in extreme circumstances.
4.3.62 DisasterHistory
In 1980, Krohn and Slosson ( 1980) made an assessment and cost estimate of the damage caused by expansive
soils throughout the United States. They estimated that approximately $7 billion in property damage was
.reportedly attributed to construction on expansive soils. While no recent figures have been identified, the
increase in construction activity in areas of expansive soil, especially in southern California, will undoubtedly
E:t,s i
oaa...m*,Dmm 4 -25
SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment •
cause this number to increase. L David Rogers of the University of Missouri found that "expansive soils are
the second leading cause of properly damage in the United States.
4.3.x+.3 Locatlon of Extend Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
Expansive soils in southern California are problematic. The California Building Code specifically addresses
expansive soils in Sections 1804.4, 1806.5 and 1815. The California Health and Safety Code Section 17954
states that "If the preliminary soil report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil
problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects, such ordinance shall require a soil
investigation of each lot in the subdivision" and "The soil investigation shall he prepared by a civil engineer
who is registered in this state."
Several cities in southern California have established guide lines for construction in areas of expansive soils.
MWDOC and the PWU generally conduct soil surveys prior to construction of water and wastewater facilities
and take the specific circumstances into consideration during design and construction.
4.3.7 FloodlCoastal Storm
4.3.1.1 Natureofflazard
Orange County covers 789 square miles and its landscape varies from mountainous tenvin (on the northeast
and southeast) to floodplams: (in . the central and western section). The County's rapid growth and
n
transformation from aagrici ltural community to an urban community has changed flood control practices in
the region. Water from rivers and creeks that originate, in the mountains are controlled through, reservoirs,
dams, diversion structures and developed plains. Although there is a countywide system of flod control
facilities, the majority of these are not designed for or capable of conveying runoff from major storms „ Such as
the Standard Project Flood (a major flood that can he expected to occur from a severe combination of
meteorological and hydrological conditions), or the 100 -year flood
To provide quantitative information for flood warning and detection, Orange County began installing its
ALERT (Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time) system in 1983. Operated by the County's
Environmental Resources Section of the Resource Development and Management Department (RDNO in
cooperation with the National Weather Service, ALERT uses remote sensors located in rivers; channels and
creeks to transmit environmental data to a central computer in rest time.. Sensors are installed along the Santa
Ana River, San Juan Creek, Arroyo Trahuco Creek, Oso Creek, Ahso Creek, as well as flood control channels
and hasins.. The field sensors transmit hydrologic and other data (e g., precipitation data, water levels,
temperature, wind speed, etc.) to base station computers for display and analysis. In addition, seven pump
stations (Huntington Beach, Cypress, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor, Harbor - Edinger, and South Park)
which regulate storm water discharge to flood control channels are utilized.
4.17.2 DisasterHPstory
Residents reported damaging floods caused by the Santa Ana River, known as "Great Floods,” as early as
1770 (notes of Father John Crespi). Major floods in Orange County along the Santa Ana. River occurred in
1810, 1815, 1825, 1862, 1884, 1891, 1916, 1927, 1938, 1969, 1983, and 1993. The greatest flood in terms of •
VIM Dada iwouae 4 -26
• SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment
water flow occurred in 1862 with an estimated flow rate of 317,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flood
was three times greater than the Great Flood of 1938 which had an estimated flow of 110,000 cfs.
Great Flood of 1862 - The flood of January 1862, called the NOACHIAN deluge of California, was umusual in
two ways: 1) the storm causing the flood occurred during a very severe drought spanning 1856 to 1864; and 2)
the flood lasted.20 days, which is considered an extremely long duration. Under normal circumstances, major
floods last only a few days. The only structure left standing along this portion of the Sarma Ana River was the
Aqua Mansa chapel and residents gathered on the small point of high -land to take refuge firm the storm
Miraculously, there were no recorded deaths.
Great Flood of 1916- The flood on January 27, 1916 inundated a large area along the Santa Ana River,
including. Main Street in downtown Santa Ana where the water was three feet deep. Adjacent farm lands,
Which later became the City of Westminster, were also flooded Three vehicular bridges and three railroad
bridges were washed away by the flood and four people drowned.
Great Flood of 1938 — The flood of 1938 is considered the most devastating flood to occur in Orange County
during the 2& Century, and affected all of southern California. The stain began on February 27 and lasted
until March 3. In the Santa Ana Basin, 34 people died and 182,300 acres were flooded All buildings in
Anaheim were damaged or destroyed. Two major railroad bridges, seven vehicular bridges, and the little town
of Atwood were completely destroyed. The Santa Ana River inundated the northwestern portion of Orange
County and train service to and from Santa Ana was cancelled. Damage exceeded $50 million:
Great Flood of 1969— The floods of January and February were the most destructive on record in Orange
County. Previous floods had greater potential for destruction, but the County was relatively undeveloped when
they occurred During the flood of 1969 rain fell almost continuously from January 18 to January 25, resulting
in widespread flooding. Orange County was declared a national disaster area on February 5. A second storm
hit on February 21 and lasted until February 25 bringing rain to the already saturated. ground. This second
storm-culminated in a disastrous flood on February 25th. The storm resulted in the largest peak outflow from
Santiago Reservoir since its inception in 1933. The reservoir at Villa Park Dam reached its capacity for the
first time since its construction in 1963; the dam had a maximum inflow of 11,000 cfs. The outlet conduit was
releasing up to 4,000 cfs yet the spillway overflowed at 1:30 p.m. and continued for 36 hours. The maximum.
peak outflow from the dam reached 6,000 cis. Although the safety of the dam was never threatened the
outflow caused serious erasion downstream in the cities of Orange and Santa Ana and in some parks and golf
courses. A Southern Pacific Railroad bridge, water and sewer lines, a pedestrian over crossing, and three.
roads washed out. Approximately 2,000 Orange and Santa Ana residents were evacuated from houses
bordering Santiago Creek
Great Flood of 1983 — El Nino rains caused the flood of 1983. The intense downpour and high tides often
associated with El Nino (due to the presence of a low pressure system) affected intense shoreline flooding.
Meanwhile the Santa Ana River crested its sides near the mouth of the ocean; creating a disaster for the low-.
lying areas of Huntington Beach; floodwaters were three to five feet deep.
Great Floods of 1993.— In 1993, El Nino caused more flooding. An intense storm was concentrated. in the
Laguna Canyon Channel area extending from Lake Forest to downtown Laguna Beach In spite of a valiant
• effort to save downtown merchants by sandbagging, the stores were flooded.. Laguna Canyon Road was
On o�VMWIDaus 4 -27
SECTION FOUR RRskAssessmOhl
damaged extensively, as well as homes and small businesses in the Laguna Canyon Channel. There were no
fatalities reported.
Great Flood of 1995 — In 1995: a disaster was declared in Orange County after extremely heavy and intense
rains exceeded the storm runoff capacity of local drainage systems in many Orange County cities and regional
Flood Control District systems.. As a result widespread flooding of homes and businesses occurred throughout
these cities. There were approximately 1000 people evacuated and extensive damage sustained to both private
and public property.
Great Floods of 1997/1998 — El Niflo Storms that occurred during this period created extensive storm damage
to private property and public in&rast ucture, with damages reaching approximately $50 million Storm
conditions caused numerous countywide mudslides, road closures, and channel erosion. Hillside erosion and
mudslides forced the tominual clearing of roads of fallen trees and debris.. Protective measures; such as
stabilizing hillside road slopes with rock or K-rail at the tee of slopes, were taken to keep the normal flow of
transportation , Harbors, beaches, parks, and trails also sustained substantial storm damage.
In 1992 server coastal storms affected many coastal utilities storm drain and sewage treatment processes.
SOCWA reported significant cracks and damage to its Aliso Creek Ocean outfall.
4.3.7.3 Location of t xtent(Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
The Santa Ana River, flowing through the heart of Orange County to the Pacific Ocean is the county's greatest •
flood threat (Figure 4.3-4 floodplain map). Critical wastewater lines are located whbin the Santa Ana River
channel carrying human waste as well as hazardous chemicals. Should the river flood, sediment overlying this
line may be eroded away and expose portions of the lines. Exposure of the line during a flood episode would
make it vulnerable to direct impact from debris. as well as the force of the water, potentially resulting in a line
break A rupture along this. critical line would result in the exposure of the downstream population and
environment to the human waste and hazardous waste it carries.
The flood of 1938 wiped out roads, bridges, and railroads near the river and took 34 lives when an eight -foot
wall of water swept out of the Santa 'Am Canyon The communities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Garden
Grove were the hardest bit. This flood was a catalyst for construction of Prado Dam, which was developed as
part of the.Army Corps of Engineers flood control protection plan Government officials' estimate that today
without the protection of Prado Dam, a flood of this magnitude would cause as many as 3;000 deaths and
exceed $25 billion in damages. More than 110 acres would be flooded with three feet of water and 255,000
structures would be damaged (S. Gold, in the Los Angeles Times in 1999).
The Army Corp of Engineers, tasked with the project of increasing the level of protection at Prado Dam from
the currant 70 -year level to a 190 -year level of protection, has slated completion for January 2008 (
bW://www.el.mmamy.mil/PradodgMINodo&mbtm). Further, portions of the County. not inundated by
river overflow during a 100 -year event could be subject to flooding from overflow of water drainage facilities
currently inadequate for carrying the 100 -year discharge. Other areas subject to flooding during severe storms .
include areas adjacent to Atwood Channel, Brea Creek Channel, Fullerton Creek Channel, Carbon Creek
Channel, San Juan Creek Channel, and East Garden Grove•Wintersburg Charnel. Areas adjacer to Santiago
Creek and Collins. Channel in the central portion of the County and large portions of the San Diego Creek •
ow,wa�w 4 -28
SECTION FOUR BiskAssessment
watershed in the City of Irvine and unincorporated areas of the County are also subject to inundation In the
southern portion of the county canyon areas are subject to flooding. The continued development in these areas
has made the flood hazard even greater.
In 1992, the City of Buena Park was affected by a flooding episode in which their city hall flooded and the
water system had minor main breaks needing repair. In 1998, the Moulton Niguel Water. District was affected
by flooding when a major failure in two separate locations was identified along the Oso- Trabuco Trunk sewer
system The water district's 18 -inch gravity sewer pipeline along Aliso Creek has also historically. been
affected by flooding over the past 25 years. The Santa Margarita Water District was affected by flooding in
1980 when Oso Creek flooding and bank failures cost nearly $ 300,000 in damages to trunk sewer lines and an
access road. The South Orange County Wastewater Authority has also experienced damage to its facilities
resulting from flooding. In the 1980s the JB Latham Facility flooded resulting in an additional facility having
had to be built. The Coastal Treatment Plant was flooded several times between 1992 and 1998. A three -mile
stretch of the AWMA access road was also flooded each year with major flooding episodes in 1998 and 2005.
SOCWA's 3A Plant has also been subject to flooding from the Oso Creek. In 2005 severe storms caused
flooding, mudslides and heavy surface flows in the San Juan Creek which Broke a 16". and 10" sewer force
main and eroded a protective cover over a 48" domestic pipeline at a repair cost of nearly 3 million dollars.
4.3.8 High Winds/Santa Ana Winds
4.18.1 Nature of Hazard
Santa Ana winds are generally defined as warm, dry winds that blow from the east or northeast (offshore).
The complex topography of southern California combined with various atmospheric conditions creates
numerous scenarios that may cause widespread or isolated Santa Ana events. Commonly, Santa. Ana winds
develop when a region of high pressure builds over the Great Basin (the high plateau east of the Sierra
Mountains and west of the Rocky Mountains including most of Nevada and Utah). Clockwise circulation
around the center of this high pressure area forces air down slope from the high plateau. The air warms as it
descends toward the California coast at.the rate of 5 degrees Fahrenheit per 1,000 feet due to compression of
the air mass. The air is dry since it originated in the desert, and it dries out even more as it is compressed.
Santa Ana winds often blow with exceptional speed in the Santa Ana Canyon and forecasters at the National
Weather Service in Oxnard and San Diego usually place speed minimums on these winds and reserve the use
of "Santa Ana" for winds greater than 25 knots. h( hoJ/ nimbo. wrh. noaa.eov/Sandieeo/srmwind.htmp.
4.3.8.2 DlsasterHlstoty
Santa Ana wind conditions can result in two general disaster conditions.. The most common is fire fanned by
the high winds. This was the situation in 1993 in Laguna Beach when a massive fire destroyed a number of
homes in the hills around Laguna Beach. Fires are a concern to the water utilities both due to the potential
affect to its infrastructure; but also in terms of the utilities' obligation to provide water pressure for the fire
fighting effort. The second concern with Santa Ana wind conditions is the potential for direct damage to
buildings and infrastructure as a result of the high winds. The falling of trees can break pipelines„ as well as
negative affects on buildings. Of a higher concern is that Santa Ana winds can adversely affect power utilities
• .
ow."aarw.o�sas 4 -29
SECTION FOUR RISRAssessment •
that have transformers and power lines, in turn affecting the ability of some water and wastewater utilities to
operate when back up generation is unavailable.
4.3.8.3 Location of Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
Santa Ana winds commonly occur between October and February, with December having the highest
frequency of events. Summer events are rare. Wind speeds are typically 35 knots through and below passes
and canyons with gusts to 50 knots. Stronger Santa Arm winds can bave.gusts greater than 60 knots over
widespread areas with gusts greater than 100 knots in some areas. Frequently, the strongest winds in the basin
occur during the night and morning hours due to the absence of a sea breeze. The sea breeze which typically
blows onshore daily, can moderate the Santa Ana winds during the late morning and afternoon hours. Santa
Ana winds are an important forecast challenge because of the high fire danger associated with them.
4.3.9 Landslide /Mudslide > 25 Percent
4.3.9.1 Natureofilazard
Landslide is a general tern for a falling mass of soil or rocks. A mudslide (debris flow) is a flow of very wet
rock and soil. The primary effects of landslides/ mudslides can include:
• Abrupt depression and lateral displacement of hillside surfaces over distances of up to several •
hundreds of feet.
• ..Disruption of surface drainage.
• Blockage of flood control channels and roadways.
+ Displacement or destruction of improvements such as roadways, buildings, and water wells.
Landslides are a type of `mass wasting' which denotes any down slope movement of soil and rock under the
direct influence of gravity. The term `landslide' encompasses events such as rock falls, topples, slides, spreads,
and flows. Landslides can be initiated by rainfall, earthquakes, volcanic activity, changes in groundwater,
disturbance and change of a slope by man -made construction activities, or any combination of these factors.
Landslides can occur underwater, causing tidal waves and damage to coastal areas. These landslides are called
submarine landslides (USGS Fact Sheet 0071 -40, Version 1.0).
Failure of a slope occurs when the force that is pulling the slope downward (gravity) exceeds the strength of
the earth materials that compose the slope. They can move slowly, (millimeters per year) or can move quickly
and disastrously, as is the case with debris -flows. Debris -flows can travel down a hillside of speeds up to 200
miles per' hour (more commonly, 30 — 50 miles per hourl depending on the slope angle, water coutent, and
type of earth and debris in the flow. These flows are initiated by heavy, usually sustained, periods of rainfall,
but sometimes can happen as a result of shat bursts of concentrated rainfall in susceptible areas. Burned areas .
charred by wildfires are particularly susceptible to debris flows, given certain soil characteristics and slope
conditions (www.consrv.ca.gov).
Um 4 -30 •
• SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment
A debris or mud flow is a river of rock, earth and other materials, including vegetation that is saturated with
water. This high percentage of water gives the debris flow a very.rapid rate of movement down a slope. This
high rate of speed makes debris flows extremely dangerous to people and property in its path Earthquakes
often trigger flows.' Debris flows normally occur when a landslide moves down -slope as a semi -fluid mass
scouring, or partially scouring soils from the slope along its path Flows are typically rapid moving and also
tend to increase in volume as they scour out the channel. Flows often occur during heavy rainfall, can occur
on gentle slopes, and can move rapidly for large distances.
Wildland fires on hills covered with chaparral are often a precursor to debris flows in burned out carryon. The
extreme heat of a wildfire can create a soil condition in which the earth becomes impervious to water by
creating a waxy -like layer just'below the ground surface. Since the water cannot be absorbed into the soil, it
rapidly accumulates on slopes, often gathering loose particles of soil into a sheet of mud and debris. Debris
flows can often originate miles away from unsuspecting persons, and approach them at a high rate-of speed
with little warning.
Natural processes can cause landslides or re- activate historical landslide sites. The removal or undercutting of
shoreline-supporting material along bodies of water by currents and waves produces countless small slides
each year. Seismic tremors can trigger landslides on slopes historically known to have landslide movement.
Earthquakes can also cause additional, failure (lateral spreading) that can occur on gentle slopes above steep
streams and riverbanks.
t • 4.3.9:2 Disaster History
The following landslide accounts comprise only a &action of the southern California landslide history:
•
1.978 Bluebird Canyon, Orange County
u
The cost of recovery was $52.7 million (2000 dollars) with 60 houses destroyed or damaged.
Unusually heavy min in March of 1978 may have contributed to initiation of the landslide. Although
the 1978 slide area was approximately 3.5 awes, it is suspected,to be a potion of a larger, ancient
landslide.
• 1980 Southern California Slides
The damage was estimated at $1.1 billion in 2000 dollars. Heavy winter rainfall in 1979 -80 caused
damage in six southern California counties. In 1980, the rainstorm started on February 8 with 5 days
of continuous rain and 7 inches of precipitation. Slope failures were beginning to develop by February
15 and then very high - intensity rainfall.occurred on February 16. As much as 8 inches of rain fell in a
6 hour period in many locations. Records and personal observations.in the field on February 16 and 17
showed that the mountains and slopes literally fell apart on those two days.
• 1983 San Clemente, Orange County
The damage to California Highway 1 was estimated at $65 million in 2000 dollars. Litigation at that
time involved approximately $43.7 million (2000 dollars).
' RObut Olsen Associates, Metro Regional Hazard Mitigation and Planning Guide, (]me 1999) Metro
.
ooaow V60n06 4 -31
SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment •
• 1994 Northridge, California earthquake landslides
As a result of the magnitude 6.7 Northridge; California, earthquake, more than 11,000 landslides
occurred over an area of 10,000 km2. Most were in the Santa Susana Mountains and in mountains
north of.the Santa Clara River Valley. They destroyed dozens of homes, blocked roads, and damaged
oil-field infrastructure. It caused deaths from Coccidioidomycosis (valley fever) the spore of which
was released firnn the soil by the landslide activity and blown toward the coastal populated areas.
March 1995 Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, Southern California
Above normal rainfall triggered damaging debris flows, deep- seated landslides, and flooding. Several
deep- seated landslides were triggered by the storms, the. most notable was the La Conchita landslide,
which in combination with a local debris flow, destroyed or badly damaged 11 to 12 homes in the
small town of La Conchita, about 20 km west of Ventura. There also was widespread debris -flow and
flood damage to homes, commercial buildings, and roads and highways in areas along the Malibu
coast that had been devastated by wildfire 2 years before.
1998 Laguna Niguel, Orange County, Landslide
During the 1997/1998 El Nino Season, heavy rainfall increased movement on the site of an ancient
landslide in Laguna Niguel. The storms in December 1997 had accelerated its movement and in early
1998, a crumbling hillside forced the evacuation of 10 hilltop homes and more than 10 condominium
units resting below. Ultimately four of the hilltop homes collapsed, falling down hillside into the void
created by the slide area. The condominium complex has since been demolished and the site remains •
open space.
• 2005 Blue Bird Carryon, Laguna Beach, Orange County; Landslide
On June 1, 2005, Bluebird Canyon in Laguna Beach experienced a landslide. It would appear that
exceptionally heavy rainfall during the winter period was the underlying cause of the instability in an
ancient landslide. A 30-acre piece of hillside' between 50 to 60 feet deep broke free and fell .on the
homes below; 15 homes were destroyed and 32 others had varying levels of damage. The
approximate cost of damage was about $35 million
• 2005 SCWD JRWSS Slope Failure
During the 2005 winter storms a landslide event occurred in April, causing cracks in the pipeline
where it travels through an easement between Camino Del Avion and Philemon Drive in the City of
Dana Point A temporary 24 inch BDPE bypass line was installed above grade within the slide the
slide zone and a geotechnical engineer was engaged to report on the likelihood of further landslides
and to recommend options for permanent repairs to the damaged pipeline. The project will examine
the potential alignments for the permanent replacement of pipeline sections threatened by the slide
area.
• 2005 SCWD landslide impact to the Joint Regional Transmission Line
Following a year. of heavy rainfall, a slope failure occurred in Laguna Niguel. in an area that included a
section of the Joint Regional Transmission Pipeline. The pipeline had to be shutdown and a temporary
pipeline was routed around the slide area while evaluations of the stability of the area were made. •
o�,.••wraouas 4 -32
• SECTION FOUR
Risk Assessment
Ultimately, the pipeline will be rerouted around the unstable area or located back in the slope after it
has stabilized. Because the problem occurred in the winter /spring period and there are other pipelines
into South Orange County, no water shortages were experienced.
4.3.13 Location of Extent/ Probability of Occurrence.and Magnitude
Vulnerability assessments for landslides assist in predicting how different types of property and population
groups may be affected by a slide. Data that includes specific landslide -prone and debris flow locations in the
county can be used to assess the population and total value of property at risk from future landslide
occurrences.
Factors included in assessing landslide risk include population and proPerty distribution in the hazard area, the
frequency of landslide or debris flow occurrences, slope steepness, soil characteristics, and. precipitation
intensity. This type of analysis could generate estimates of the damages to the county due to a specific
landslide or debris flow event. At the time of publication of this plan, data was insufficient to conduct a GIS
risk analysis based on soils and vegetation. However, slopes of greater than 25 percent were. identified and
mapped as areas of greatest possible risk for a landslide in the county (Figure 4.3 -5).
Rain induced landslides were reported in Santa Margarita in 1980, 1993, 1995 and 2005. IN 1980 rahu washed
out an access_ road in Coto De Caza uncovering an 8" water line. The same series of storms also exposed a 21"
id trunk sewer line along the Oso Creek in Mission Viejo resultin g in damages of $300;000. In 1993 bank failures
.caused many pipelines to break which had to be replaced, relocated, or re- protected at a cost of nearly 2.1
miltion.dollam..A slope failure in I995 caused pipeline failures costing nearly $30,000 and in.2005 a.res.ervoir
slope failure in Talega Valley cost $350,000. Landslides also affected the South Orange. County Water
Authority's Aliso Creek Effluent Transmission Main, when landslides have continually caused an erosion
problem along Aliso Creek and affecting a 36 -inch pipeline carrying treated wastewater. By the shear nature of
water running downbill, several critical pipelines, water storage tanks, reservoirs are located in areas that can.
be affected by landslides.
4.3.10 Land Subsidence
4.3.10.1 Nature of Hazard
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) defines land subsidence as a gradual settling or sudden sinking
of the ground surface as a result of subsurface movement of underlying geologic units (Galloway et al. 2005).
Scientists at the USGS have determined that nearly 17,000 square miles in 45 states have been directly
affected by land subsidence, caused by aquifer- system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground
mining, hydro - compaction, natural compaction, sinkholes, and thawing permafrost. More than 80 percent of
land subsidence is caused by over -use of groundwater and the increasing development of land and water
resources threatens to worsen existing land- subsidence problems [while initiating] new ones" (Galloway et al.
2005).
Land subsidence in California is mainly caused by groundwater pumping in areas where aquifer recharge is
• exceeded. Known as "over- drafting," the inability to replenish aquifers has led to lower water tables, resulting
Em Doa.om isoa a 4 -33
SECTION FOUR HISKAssessment
in damage to infrastructure, water quality and in coastal areas has resulted in the intrusion of seawater. As the
Galloway et al. (2005) notes "the compaction of unconsolidated aquifer systems that can accompany excessive
groundwater pumping is by far the single largest cause of subsidence" and "the overdraft of such aquifer
systems has resulted in permanent subsidence and related ground failures," thus "the extraction of this resource
for economic gain constitutes 'groundwater mining' in the truest sense of the term." Over- drafting is fiuther
exacerbated in hot geographic regions with a large population; this includes much of the southern California.
4.3.10.2 DisasterHistoty
The relationship between subsidence and groundwater pumping was not fully recognized until 1928 when O.E.
Meinzer, scientist with the USFS, realized that aquifers were compressible (Galloway, et a1 2005). By the
1950s, the USGS made a concerted effort to measure the amount of ground subsidence. In 1952, Joseph
Poland studied large discrepancies between the US.. Coast and Geodetic Survey for the Santa Gana and San
Joaquin valleys. Poland noted that the increased use of groundwater correlated with the amount of ground
subsidence. Poland's work led to the verification of "consolidation theory" or compressible aquifers, as well as
leading to the development of "definitions, methods of quantification, and confirmation of the irderreladonship
among hydraulic -head declines, aquitard (clay) compaction, and land subsidence" (Galloway, nt'aL 2005)
4.3.10.2.1 Location of Extent/ probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
Currently, land subsidence severely affects much of the west CoasL nd�u
�The major labsideuce affected area
of Orange County exists between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach and five miles `inland from this point .
(OCWD 2001). This area' is referred to as the Talbert Gap; which formed millennia ago from alluvial
deposition from the Santa Ana River. With nearly a century of underground water aquifer pumping to sustain
the intensive grazing and agriculture practices, by 1956 the water table had lowered to below sea level
allowing saltwater from the Pacific Ocean to rude through the Talbert Gap. Allowed to continue unchecked,
the continued intensive groundwater pumping regime and intruding seawater would have drastically altered
the environmental landscape of Orange County, ultimately lending to substantial land subsidence. As a result
of studies identifying subsidence and saltwater intrusion in Orange County, OCWD began "'a: massive
management program to minimize the loss of aquifer-stared water and reduce saltwater intrusion. However,
this does not negate the fact that millions of dollars have been spent throughout the county and the State in an
effort to mitigate adverse effects from intensive groundwater pumping leading to ground subsidence.
4.3.11 TornadoMater Spout
4.3.11.1 Nature of Hazard
A tornado is defined as a violently rotating column of air extending from the base of a thunderstorm to the
ground. Air moves very rapidly upward around a tornado center. The most violent tornadoes have wind
speeds of 300 mph or more and are capable of tremendous destruction.
ova.+ smm 4 -34
• SECTION FOUR �isg Assessmeet
Tornados are produced during severe thunderstorms, which are created near the junction between warm moist
air and cold dry air. Tornados derive their energy from the heat contained in warm, moist air masses.
Tornados do not form during every thunderstorm They occur when the moist, warm air is trapped beneath a
stable layer of cold dry air by an intervening layer of warm dry air. This is called an inversion. If this is
disturbed, the moist air will push through the stable arc that is. holding it down. This warm air will then
condense as the latent heat it holds is released. This air will then spiral upwards. With the help of different
types of winds, this spiral gains speed, producing a tornado (County of Orange 2004:155; FEMA 2004).
Tornados can accompany tropical storms and hurricanes as they move onto land; a tornado that forms over
water is known as a waterspout.
A tornado path is generally less than 6/10 of a mile wide. The length of the path ranges from a few hundred
meters to dozens of kilometers and a tornado will rarely last longer then 30 minutes. Tornados have been
recorded as lifting and moving objects weighing more then 300 tons up to 30 feet They can also lift homes
off of their foundations and move them up to 300 feet. They collect an incredible amount of debris, which
whirls out of their winds at.high velocities.
Some tornados are clearly visible, while rains or low clouds may obscure others. Before a tornado hits, the
wind may diminish and the air may became still. A cloud of debris often marks the location of a tornado, even
if no funnel is evident
In an average year, 800 tornadoes are reported across the United States, which cause 80 deaths and over 1,500
injuries. While many people associate tornados with the Midwest, tornados have occurred in every state. In
California, one third of the state's tornados occur in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, or San Diego
Counties (FEMA 2004). .
The severity of a tornado is measured through the Fujita Scale, which categorizes tornados based on damage
discovered (not recorded wind speeds). Named after creator Tetsuya Theodore Fujita of the University of
Chicago in 1971, the scale includes the following categories:
• F -0: 40-72 mph, chimney damage; tree branches broken
• F -1: 73 -112 mph, mobile homes pushed off foundation or overturned
• F-2: 113 -157 mph, considerable damage; mobile homes demolished, trees uprooted
• F3: 158 -205 mph, roofs and walls torn down, trains overturned, cars thrown
• F4: 206 -260 mph, well - constructed walls leveled
• F -5: 261 -318 mph, homes lifted off foundation and carried considerable distances, autos thrown as far
as 100 meters
To mitigate the damage associated with tornados, several steles and measures can be taken. Orange County
has implemented numerous measures, which are designed to protect the County's residents, infrustructure, and
assets. These actions are based on preparedness and include:
• Maintaining telephone contact with the National Weather Service (NWS).
• ." owx. vasoaoa 4 -35
SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment •
• Monitoring the NWS "tornado watches" and "tornado warnings" issued to the public and government
utilities.
• Continuing public education regarding watches and warnings.
• Gaining access to and creating considerable cooperation with local media.
• Encouraging power and utility companies to have restoration plans and mitigation efforts . in place.
• Establish debris clearance requests with outside utilities.
• Shelter agreements with the Red Cross are established or updated to provide shelter operations.
• Broadcasts using alt emergency radio frequencies to all emergency services utilities are issued for all
watches and warnings
4.3:11:2 DisasterHistory
California, and specifically Orange County, have experienced numerous tornadoes -and their affects. Between
1958 and 2005, there have been at least 29 confirmed tornadoes in Orange County. Table 43-4 surmises these
disasters:
Table 4.3.11.2 -1
Historic Tornado Events in Orange County (1958-2005)
Date
Type
Magnitude
Death
Injury
Property
Damage
4/1/1958
Tornado
F
0
0
OK
211911962
Tornado
FO
0
0
OK
41811965
Tomado
F
0
0
OK
11(71`1966
Tornado
F
0
0
3K
111711966
Tornado
F2
.0
0
3K
3/16/1977
Tomado
F1
0
.4
2.5M
219/1978
Tornado
F3
0
6
2.5M
1/31/1979
Tornado
F1
0
0
OK
11(9119$2
Tomado
FO
0
0
3K
1119/1982
Tornado
F1
0
0
3K
1/1311984
Tornado
FO
0
0
3K
3/1611986
Tomado
F1
0
0
2.5M
1/1811988
Tomado
FO
0
0
25K
1/1811988
Tomado
FO
0
0
OK
2/28/1991
Tomado
FO
0
0
OK
3/2711991
Tornado
F1
0
0
OK
12/7/1992
Tomado
F1
0
0
250K
D ,� 4 -36
.•
•
. SECTIONFOUR RiskASSessment
u
40
Table 4.3.11.24 (continued)
Historic Tornado Events in Orange County (1958 -2005)
Date
Type
Magnitude
Death
Injury
Property
Damage
1217/1992
Tornado
Ft
0
0
3K
1229/1992
Tomado
FO
0
0
3K'
1/17/1993
Tornado
FO
0
1
5.OM
1/18119SO
Tornado
FO
0
0
50K
21811993
Tornado.
FO
0,
0
50K
11/11/1993
Tornado
FO
0
2
1K
W11994
Tomado
FO
0
0
500K
11/11/1997
Tomado
Ft
0
0
0
12/21/1997
Tornado
Ft
0
0
15K
2/24/1998
Tondo I
FO
0
0
20K
212412001.
Tornado
FO
0
0
50K
2119/2005.
Tornado
FO
0
0
15K'
(Reference: NOAA Sategte and Inbindon Service, 2006)
Based on these data, Orange County has experienced only one tornado greater than F -2, and never suffered a
casualty from a tornado. The majority of the tornados have been either an FO or Fl. The first reported tornado
was in 1958, and they have continued, somewhat frequently. Historically, most tornadoes occur between
November and March within Orange County, and tornadoes have caused approximately $13 million in total.
damage
The worst tornado in the county'. s history occurred on February 9, 1 978. It was an F3 tornado that injured six
people and caused $2.5 million in damage. The tornado originated in Irvine and traveled two miles. At its
greatest width, the tornado was 67, yards wide. Another devastating tornado occurred on January 17, 1993.
Known as the Lake Forest Tornado, the tornado was actually categorized as an F01 but caused $5 million in
damage to infrastructure. There was one person injured in the tornado, as well.
4.3.11.3 Location and Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
Tornadoes have struck every state, but most impact the area known as 'Tornado Alley' during. the spring.
Tornado Alley extends from Nebraska to cenhral Texas. Orange County, California is not within this area, but
is susceptible to tornadoes. Tornadoes in Orange County can strike. any part of the County, including coastal
areas, and are not regulated to a season, like spring (most occur, during winter in the County). There is a'
possibility that Orange County can tie impacted by a major tornado (F3' or greater). Accordingly, the dense
population and overdeveloped parts of the County can be affected significantly. The impacts of a tornado to
water and wastewater would be from the resulting power outages and potential impacts to buildings.
oowmaa,rsoaas 4-37
SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment •
4.3.12 WildlandiUrban Fire
43.12.1 Nature of Hazard
A variety of fire protection challenges exist within Orange County, including structure, urban fires, wildland
fires, and fires at the wildland/urban interface This hazard analysis focuses on Midland fires, but also
addresses issues specifically related to.the wildland/urban interface. There are three categories of interface fire:
the classic wildland/urban interface exists where well- defined urban and suburban development presses up
against open expanses of wildland areas, the mixed wildland/urban interface is characterized by isolated
homes, subdivisions and small communities situated predominantly in wildland settings, and the occluded
wildland/urban interface existing where islands of Midland vegetation occur inside a largely urbanized area.
Certain conditions must be present for significant interface fires., to occur. The most common conditions
include: hot, dry and'windy weather, the inability of fire protection forces to contain or suppress.the fire, the
occurrence of multiple fires that overwhelm committed resource's, and a large fuel load (dense vegetation).
Once a fire has started, several conditions influence its behavior, including fuel topography, weather, drought,
and.development.
Orange County has two distinct areas of risk for Midland fire (Figure 4.3 -6). The foothills and lower
mountain areas are most often covered with scrub brush or chaparral. A key challenge Orange County faces
regarding the wildfire hazard is the increasing number of houses being built in the wildland/utban interface.
Every year the growing population has expanded further and further into the hil ts and mountains, including •
forest lands. The increased "interface" between urban/suburban areas and open space areas has produced a
significant increase in threats to life and property from fires and has pushed existing fire protection systems
beyond original or current design and capability. Several critical water and wastewater facilities are located
near, the, wildlandlurban interface; vegetation management is a critical component to .maintaining; safe
water/v astewater facilities in these areas. It should be noted that the maps used. to indicate fire threat. were
largely created for wildland fire evaluation, and did not include to the extent preferred the threat analysis for
urban Midland interfaces.
The magnitude of the California 2003 fires is the result of three primary factors: (1) severe drought,
accompanied by a series of storms that produce thousands of lightning strikes and windy conditions; (2) an
infestation of bark beetles that had killed thousands of mature trees; and (3) the effects of wildfire suppression
over the past century that has led to buildup of brush and small diameter trees in the forests. These same .
factors are present in Orange County.
4.3.12.2 DisasterNistoty
Large fires have been part of the Southern California landscape for millennia. "Written documents reveal that
during the 19th century, human settlement of southern California altered the fire regime of coastal California
.by increasing the fire frequency. This was an era of very limited fire suppression, and yet like today, large
crown fires covering tens of thousands of acres were not uncommon. The USGS website (www.usgs.eov)
describes one of the largest fires in Los Angeles County (60,000 acres), occurring in 1878. The largest fire
according to the USGS site in Orange County's history, in 1889, was over half a million acres. Figure 6 lists
some of the historic fires from 1961 to 2063.
4 -38 •
• SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment
During the 2002 fire season, more than 6.9 million acres of public and private lands burned in the United
States, resulting in loss of property, damage to resources and disruption of community services. Taxpayers
spent more than $1.6 billion to combat more than 88,400 fires nationwide. Many of these fires burned in
wildland/urban interface areas and exceeded the fire suppression capabilities of those areas. According to the
California Division of Forestry (CDF), there were over 7,000 reportable fires in California in 2003, with over
one million acres. burned. According to CDF statistics, in the October 2003 Firestorms, over 4;800 homes
were destroyed and 22. lives were lost.
The fall of 2003 marked the most destructive wildfire season in California history. In a ten day period, 12
separate fires raged across Southern California in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and
Ventura counties. The massive Cedar Fire in San Diego County alone consumed of 2,800 homes and burned
over 250,000 acres. Since the fires of 2003, several other large fires have burned in southern California that
included portions of Orange County. Most recently, the Sierra Fire took place in Orange and Riverside
Counties between February 6-12,2006, and burned 10,584 acres.
4.3.12.3 Location of Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude
California experiences large; destructive wildland fires almost every year and Orange County is no exception.
Wildland fires have occurred within the county, particularly in the fall, ranging from small, localized fires to
disastrous fires covering thousands, of acres. The most severe fire protection problem in the unincorporated
areas is wildland fire during Santa Ana wind conditions. The combination of the need for water fire flow and
• the potential for power fail= due to winds is a dangerous combination.
4.3.13 Manmade Hazards
4.3.13.1 ` Nature of Hazard
Manmade hazards are distinct from natural hazards in that they result directly from the actions of people. Two
types of manmade hazards include: non - malicious and malicious. Non - malicious hazards refer to incidents that
can arise from human activities such as the manufacturing, storage, transport, and use of hazardous materials,
which include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and infectious substances. Non - malicious hazards are
assumed to be accidental and their consequences unintended Malicious, on the other haiid, encompasses
intentional, and criminal acts involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD)'or conventional weapons: WMD
can involve the deployment of biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons with the result of
affecting a large percentage of the population either directly or indirecfly. Conventional weapons and
techniques include the use of arson, incendiary explosives, armed attacks, intentional hazardous materials
release, and cyber- terrorism (attack via computer). Typically, conventional weapons have a very specific target
and are limited in scope affect.
Non - Malicious Hazards
Non - malicious hazards can occur because of human carelessness, technological failure, intentional acts, and
natural hazards. When caused by natural hazards, these incidents are known as secondary hazards, whereas
intentional acts are terrorism. Hazardous materials releases, depending on the substance involved and type of
• release, can directly cause injuries and death and contaminate air, water, and soils. While the probability of a
4 -39
SECTION F01M Risk As$eSSment
major release at any particular facility or at any point along a known transportation corridor is relatively low,.
'the consequences of releases of these materials can be very serious.
Some hazardous materials present a radiation risk. Radiation is any form of energy propagated as rays, waves
or energetic particles that travel through the air or a material medium Radioactive materials, a g., uranium,
plutonium, radium, and thorium, are composed of mutable atoms. An unstable atom gives off its excess energy
until it becomes stable. The energy emitted is radiation The process by which an atom changes from an
unstable state to a more stable state by emitting radiation is called radioactive decay or radioactivity.
Radiological materials have many uses including:
• use by doctors to detect and treat serious diseases,
• use by educational institutions and companies for research,
• use by the military to power large ships and submarines, and
• use as a critical base material to help produce the commercial electrical power that is generated by a
nuclear power plant.
Radioactive materials, if handled. improperly, or radiation accidentally released into the envirogment,.can be
dangerous because of the harmful effects of certain types of radiation on the human body and the human
environment The longer a. person is 'exposed to radiation and the closer the person is to the radiation, the •
greater the risk Although radiation cannot be detected by the senses, scientists can easily detect it with
sophisticated instruments that can detect even the smallest levels of radiation Under extreme circumstances,
an accident or intentional explosion involving radiological materials can cause very serious problems.
Consequences may include death, severe health risks to the public, damage to the environment,. and
extraordinary loss of, or damage to, property.
Terrorism
Following a number of serious international and domestic terrorist incidents during the I990's and early
2000's, citizens across the United.States have paid increased attention to the potential for deliberate, harmful
terrorist actions by individuals or groups with political, social, cultural, and religious motives. There is no
single, universally accepted definition of terrorism, and it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. However,
terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 CFR,.Swdon 0.85). The Federal Bureau of lmestigation
further characterizes terrorism as either. domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and
objectives of the terrorist organization However, the origin of the terrorist or person causing the hazard is fit
less relevant to mitigation planning than the hazard itself and its consequences. Terrorists utilize a wide variety
of agents and delivery systems.
The dams in Orange County are considered as potential terrorist targets. The weapon most likely used could
Include explosives with the goal of collapsing the dam. Such an event would result in a dam failure and an
immdation event with little or no warning. The potential of using other types of weapons such as chemical or
Ms 4-40 •
• SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment
biological are considered low due to the large amount of material that would be required to contaminate the
water system. This scenario would only apply to those dams where the reservoirs are used for drinking water.
4.3.13.2 Disaster History
Hazardous Material Releases
Hazardous materials can include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, infectious substances, and hazardous
wastes. The State of California defines a hazardous material as a substance that is toxic, ignitable or
flammable, or reactive and/or corrosive. An extremely hazardous material is defined as a substance that shows
high acute or chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, bio-accumulative properties, persistence in the environment, or
is water reactive (California Code of Regulations, Title 22). "Hazardous waste," a subset of hazardous
materials, is material that is to-be abandoned, discarded, or recycled, and includes chemical; radioactive, and
bio-bazardous waste (including medical waste). An accidental hazardous material release can occur wherever
hazardous materials are manufactured, stored, transported, or used. Such releases can affect nearby
populations and contaminate critical or sensitive environmental areas.
Numerous facilities in Orange Country generate hazardous. wastes in addition to storing and using large
numbers of hazardous materials. Although the scale is usually small, emergencies involving the release of
these substances can occur daily at both fixed sites and on the County's streets and roadways. Facilities that
• use, manufacture, or store hazardous materials in California must comply with several state and federal
regulations. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III),.which was enacted in
1986 as a legislative response to airborne releases of methyl isocyanides at Union Carbide plants in Bhopal,
India and in Institute, West' Virginia. SARA Title III, also known as the Emergency Planning and Community-
Right -To -Know Act (EPCRA), directs businesses that handle ,'store or manufacture hazardous materials in
specified amounts to develop emergency response plans and report releases of toxic chemicals. Additionally,
Section 312 of Title III requires businesses to submit an annual inventory report of hazardous materials to a
st ate - administering utility. The California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2185 in 1987, incorporating the
provisions of SARA Title III into a state program. The community right - to-know requirements. keep
communities abreast of the presence and release of hazardous wastes at individual facilities.
Additional information about the chemicals handled by manufacturing or processing facilities is contained in
the U.S. EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database. The TRI is a publicly available EPA database that
contains information on toxic chemical emissions and waste management activities reported by certain
industry groups as well as federal facilities. This inventory"was established under EPCRA and expanded by the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Facilities that exceed threshold emissions levels must report TRI
information to the U.S. EPA, the federal enforcement agency for SARA Title III.
Chemical air emissions, surface water discharges, underground injections, and releases to land are considered
chemical releases. The release of a biological agent capable of causing illness in people is considered an
infectious release. The only known release of radiological agents into the air in the County was the result of an
accident at San Onofre Nuclear' Generating Station (SONGS). In 1981, an accidental "ignition" of hydrogen
gases in a holding tank of the SONGS caused an explosion which bent the bolts of an inspection hatch on the
tank, allowing radioactive gases in the tank to escape into a radioactive waste room. From there, the
• radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. The plant was shut down for several weeks following
un Dora" %-oam 4-41
SECTIONFOUR RiskAssessmem
the event (W.I.S.E. Vol.3 No.4 p.18). This incident occurred' during the plant's operation of its Unit 1
generator, which has since been decommissioned. No serious injuries occurred
On February 3, 2001, another accident occurred at SONGS when a circuit breaker fault caused a fire that
resulted in a loss of offsite power. Published reports suggest that rolling blackouts during the same week in
California were partially due to the shutdown of the SONGS reactors in response to the 3 -hour fire. Although
no radiation was released and no nuclear safety issues were involved, the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission sent a Special Inspection Team to the plant site to investigate the accident.
Terrorism
While Orange County has not experienced any high profile attacks by groups or individuals associated with
international terrorist organizations, Orange County has several groups for advisory notification, investigation,
and analysis of terrorist events and activities. These groups include:
Terrorism Working Group (TWG): TWG was farmed in 1998 to address first responder safety issues,
incident management and public health consequences of WMD incidents that result from acts of terrorism.
TWG membership consists of law enforcement, fire departments, hazardous materials, public and
environmental health; emergency medical.. services: (EMS),: the FBI, bomb squads, hospitals, ambulance
companies, vector control, animal control, coroner; and-volunteer law enforcement advisory components.
Orange County Terrorism. Early Warning Group (TEWG): Orange County's TEWG is a. multi- •
disciplinary subcommittee (including' law, health, fire) of the Terrorism Working Group., It is designed to
obtain and analyze information and intelligence needed to formulate an effective response to threats and acts
of terrorism..,As.part, of the TEWG mission, a. threat and vulnerability assessment of potential terrorist targets
in Orange Count iwas developed in August 2601. After September 11th, the Orange County TEWG. became
fully integrated into the national mutual aid structure, thereby increasing the number of participants.. .
Orange County Private Sector. Terrorism Response Group ( PSTRG): The PSTRG was formed in
December 2001 to create a private sector partnership with the TEWG to effectively address private sector
safety, incident management, employee education and public health consequences of potential attacks on the
critical infrastructure within Orange.County. Two large groups- involved with.PSTRG are the Orange County
Business Council, of which 80% of the major businesses in Orange County are members, and TechNet, a
consortium of 28 high-tech firms. The objectives of the PSTRG include physical resource sharing, information
exchange, virtual reach -back capabilities, and subject/industry matter experts cross - utilization. The PSTRG is
.an, instrument which allows the Sheriffs Department to maximize all resources and prepare community
members for the potential of terrorism and recovery in its aftermath
Orange County Joint Terrorism Task Force (OCJTTF): Immediately after the September 1 -1, 2001, attacks
hn America, Sheriff Mike Corona, along with the Orange County Chiefs of Police, the FBI and the California
Department of Justice met to discuss the formation of a Joint Terrorism Task Force. As a result, 20 police
departments joined with five. State and Federal departments .to comprise the FBI -led Orange County Joint
Terrorism Task Face..
nowmma,w Dees 442 •
is SE01IONFOUR RiskAssessmell
California Anti - Terrorism Information Center. ( CATIC): The purpose of CATIC is to serve as a statewide
information clearinghouse accessible to law enforcement agencies engaged in counter - terrorism activities.
Orange County law enforcement, the OCITTF, and T.EWG have integrated CATIC into the Homeland
Security Strategy to increase their effectiveness in combating terrorism and thwarting terrorist acts within the
state and county.
Law Enforcement Mutual Aid: Orange County. law enforcement has long recognized the need for
standardization and uniformity of organization and response on the part of public safety providers involved in
major multi- discipline and multi jurisdictional incidents. The collaborative efforts of Orange County law
enforcement leaders over the past 53 years have forged a collective voice in mutual assistance and mutual aid.
All major components tasked with public safety (law, fire, health, emergency management) are actively
involved in developing emergency plans and insuring emergency preparedness.
4.4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible to: damage an asset is; and depends on an asset's
construction,_ contents and the economic value of its functions. A vulnerability analysis predicts the extent of
injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a givenintensity in a given area on the existing and
future built environment. Like indirect damages the vulnerability of one element of the community is often
related to, the vulnerability of another. Indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging thanAirect
effects For .example, damage to. a major water utility line could result in significant inconveniences and
• b6smess disruption that would far exceed the cost of repairing.the utility line. MWDOC has developed data to
help evaluate the economic impacts from short-term (10 days) to long term (3- years) shortages from either
emergency or drought induced shortages. This will be discussed in a later section.
Following the events of September 1 t, 2001, the EPA received a supplemental appropriation to improve the
safety and security of the water supply systems. As a result, the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 was adopted The
EPA is the federal agency assigned to ensure that the Act's regulations regarding water are enacted at each
level of government. The Bioterrorism Act requires water'utilities to conduct a vulnerability assessment, which
also includes updating their Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Within six months after submitting the
vulnerability assessment to the EPA, the ERP must also be amended to address counterterrorism measures.
The authorization to conduct a vulnerability assessment falls under Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63,
issued on May 22, 1998. Under this directive, the EPA was designated as the lead federal agency to assess and
address vulnerabilities of the nation's water supply infrastructure.
Pursuant to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 some of the participating water utilities have completed vulnerability
assessments for their water and wastewater facilities. These assessments were utilized by each PWU to
identify hazards that could not be modeled in GIS that may affect their facilities. Further, this information was
a component in developing objectives and action items to enhance the security of water and wastewater
facilities.
4.4.1 Asset Inventory
Hazards that occur in Orange County can impact critical facilities located in the County. For this HW, a
• critical facility is defined as public infrastructure used to provide potable water to the public and to maintain
ova., s as os 4-43
SECTION FOUR Risk, Assessment
wastewater services in order to maintain public health and safety. Critical facilities associated with potable
water services located within the PWU include: wells, water storage tanks, reservoirs with dams, water
treatment plants, pump stations, pressure reducing stations, emergency interties, service connections, pipelines,
and administrative buildings and utility yards (Table 4.4.2 -2). Critical facilities associated with wastewater
services located within the PWU include: wastewater treatment plants, lift stations, pipelines, and
administrative buildings and utility yards.
GIS and other modeling tools were used to map these types of critical facilities within PWUs and to determine
which would most likely be affected by each of the profiled hazards. Orange. County covers 948 square miles
with several different climate patterns and types of terrain, which allows for several hazards to affect several
different parts of the County and several jurisdictions at once or separately. The hazards are described in
Section 4.3.
4.4.2 Estimating. Potential Exposure and Losses
GIS analysis was used to estimate exposure to water and wastewater infrastructure from earthquakes, flooding,
structure farlwildfire, landslide and liquefaction An analysis conducted by MWDOC was also used to look at
potential short term and longer term outages of the regional and local water systems based on shaking that
could occur from any of the five major faults'within Orange County. Although other hazards are addressed in
the plan, including tsunami, dam failure, drought and Santa Ana winds, suitable GIS data for these hazards
either was not available (tsunami and dam failure) or the data was not suitable for GIS modeling (drought and
Santa Ana winds). For these hazards, quantitative analyses were not performed. Vulnerability assessments
associated with these hazards is based on historic incidents, described in Section 4.3 and the knowledge that
water and wastewater experts have of their critical facilities and the susceptibility of those facilities' to "these
hazards. When appropriate, PWUs noted these hazards in their objectives and action items in Section 5:0,
below.
The specific methods and results of the GIS analyses are presented below. The results are shown. as potential
exposure in thousands of dollars. For water and wastewater infrastructure pipelines, the length of
exposuretiimpact is given in miles. Other critical facilities are identified by structure type. Exposure
characterizes the value of structures within the hazard zone, and is shown as estimated exposure based on the
overlay of the hazard on the critical facilities which are assigned a cost of replacement for each type of
structure exposed. These replacement costs for the critical facilities were identified by each PWU. The loss or
exposure value is then determined with the assumption that the given, structure is totally destroyed (worst case
scenario), which is not always the case in hazard events.. This assumption was valuable in the .planning
Proms, so that the total potential damage value was identified when determining capabilities and mitigation
measures for each PWU. Table 4.4.2 -1 provides abbreviations and average replacement costs used for critical
facilities and infrastructm listed in all subsequent exposurelloss.tables. Table 4.4.2 -2 provides the total
inventory and exposure estimates for the critical facilities and infrastructure by jurisdiction Table 4.4.2 -3 to
"4.4.2 -19 shows the estimated exposure for infrastructure by jurisdiction The costs identified in the far right
column reflect cost of replacement in a worse case scenario (defined as the highest cost submitted. from among
all of the PWUs in the study process, excluding the regional facilities (this would have the effect of overstating
the local costs). For any detailed proposals to be provided to FEMA, actual costs for mitigation and detailed
estimates of the benefits of the mitigation measure will be prepared and submitted. The costs included herein
ooa.�e�naovae 4-44 •
SECTION FOUR RMAssessment
provide a relative measure of the impacts of the various hazards. For example, Garden Grove may have
identified a cast of $3 million to replace a well and Buena Park may identify a cost of $3.5 million to replace a
well but; in this instance, $3.5 million would be used as the replacement cost for all wells within the PWU.
This methodology was used for consistency across the PWUs and selection of the highest cost helps assure
that those PWUs with more expensive infiwtucture have their needs met when requesting grants.
For details on exposure of facilities by PWU, please refer to Section 5, General Overview of Assets, Goals and
Objectives. Section 5 presents each of the PWUs in alphabetical order, identifying estimated loss associated
with each of the hazards modeled in GIS, and a discussion of their capabilities to address these losses
(administratively, fiscally, technically, etc.) A discussion of each PWU's goals, objectives and action items
identified to help mitigate their infrastructure against hazards identified in the risk analysis is also presented in
Section 5.
Tables 4.4.2 -3 to 4.4.2 -14 are organized by hazard threat. For example, Table 4.4.2 -3 represents loss estimates
for Moderate Earthquake threat (based on USGS modeling) and Table 4.4.24 represents loss estimate, for
High Earthquake threat. It is important to note that FEMA mandates that gn .asset or facility can only be
recognized by one level of a particular hazard. For example, El Toro shows that a total of 22 facilities will be
damaged by a Moderate Level Earthquake threat where as 33 facilities will be damaged by a High Earthquake
threat. These 33 do not reflect an addition of 11 facilities, but rather reflect. unique facilities that may be
damaged by the event.
• Tables 4.4.2 -14 to 4.4.2 -18 reflect loss to features to pipelines based on the same hazards discussed above, and
using the same methodology. Numbers reflected include potable water (PW) and waste water. (WW) pipelines
per mile distance of line that would be destroyed by the event. These tables seem to clearly reflect that for
many districts, their greatest potential losses, in terms of value, are pipelines in their jurisdictions: Regionally,
MWDOC and the PWU are committed to upgrading existing limes, designing alternate: operating facilities and
delivery: routes for water, and maintaining them to assure a safe water supply and a reliable wastewater
management system.
Specific hazard types were classified as follows:
Hazard
Basis of Exposure
Moderate Earthquake
Peak ground awderation.of 0.5 to 0.6 g
High Earthquake
Peak ground a deration of 0.6 to 0.8 g
Extreme Earthquakes
Peak ground 8ccelerAonof 0.8 W.2 g
Slopes >25%
"eWwWoderate
Sal Type D or E with PGA of X03
• Un oaa.nem„s ou os 445
SECTION FOUR
RISI(ASSeSsMent •
Liquefaction High
Sol Type D with PGA of >0.3
Liquefaction Very High
Sol Type E with PGA of >0.3
Little or No Fire Threat
Urban Areas Without Vegetation
Moderate Fire Threat
Urban Area with Little Vegetation
High Fire Threat
Foothill Areas with High Vegetation
Very High Fire Threat
Lower Mountain Areas with High Vegetation
Extreme Fire Threat
Mountain Areas with High Forestation
4.4.2.1 MWDOC Analysis of Water System Needs During Outage Situations
The following analysis provides an estimate of the water shortages that utilities might incur iu the event of
supply interruption caused by a powerful earthquake. It is noted that it is difficult to predict exactly what part
of a water supply /distribution system will fail in an earthquake. Therefore, this analysis is intended to provide •
a feel for the range of possible shortages that would result from a powerful earthquake striking within OC.
MWDOC has adopted a policy that every retail utility is to have the ability to sustain aseven- day'iritetriiption
of MET water during average demand conditions. Therefore, this analysis analyzed a 1D tinned MET facility
outage (or "shutdown's of 7_4W duration during average demand conditions. But, an outage due to a
powerfid earthquake could occur at any time of year. The worst condition would be in summer when demands
are highest. Therefore, the emergency scenarios analyzed were an emergency outage at either maximum
month (1.35 times annual average) or "hot summer" (1.52 times annual average) demand level.
Emergency outages of the water system can be due to a variety of causes including earthquake, flood, power
interruption, electronics failure, and human error, et al. Most of these except earthquakes would result in only
local impacts. Earthquakes have the potential to inflict significant damage over large areas.
There are at least five geologic faults that could produce earthquakes that could cause significant water system
outages in OC. These fault fines are shown in Figure 4.4.2.1 -1. Magnitude and other data on these faults
were previously summarized on Table 43.5.7 -1. The San Andreas Fault can generate a more powerful quake,
but it is over 50 miles from OC. The more local faults are expected to result in more damage to the water
infrmstruchne of OC.
The simplest earthquake model would have a point epicenter, from which energy waves would travel radially
away, producing ground acceleration and shaking of intensity decreasing in perfect circular patterns. In
Southern California, earthquakes tend to occur along several -mile long fault lines so the energy pattern is a
VM oowmaarwoem 4-46 •
• SECTION FOUR Bistllsse SMeut
r
narrow ellipse or oval shape rather.than circular. Figures 4.4.2.1 -2 through 6 show the shaking intensity
patterns for five simulated events on local faults. These specific shaking maps provide the ability for any of the
PWUs to tailor the estimated earthquake damage provided by the GIS analysis to their specific service areas.
Damage resulting from earthquakes could consist of broken water and transmission mains, disruption of
treatment plants, separation of inletloutlet lines at storage tanks, damage to well casings or at wellhead piping,
and a variety of other problems to water systems. It is not possible to determine exactly what damage will
occur due to earthquakes to the OC water systems due to different ages of facilities, pipe materials, methods of
construction, soils, etc. However, anecdotal evidence provides a good indication of what might be expected.
Sylmar (San Fernando) CA, 1971 Magnitude 6.6 - The entire water supply of the small city of San
Fernando was lost in the 1971 Sylmar quake due to either well, pump.or reservoir damage Due to pipe
leaks, reservoir cracks, and lack of controls, the five city reservoirs emptied within a few hours. The city
then contracted for Water trucks to bring in drinldng water, and for portable toilets. Emergency
interconnections were made to neighboring water systems. About 500 leaks in the San Fernando system
were repaired, and 28,000 feet of water pipe had to be replaced. Several wells and reservoirs had to be
repaired or abandoned.
- The MET Jensen Filtration Plant, and then still under construction, suffered severe structural
damage to its finished water reservoir: On the influent pipe, a joint opened 4r/z to 6 inches with
an offset of about 4 inches. The effluent pipe failed in lateral shear.
Loma Prieta CA, 1989 Magnitude 7.1 - Water service was maintained to most of the millions of San
Francisco Bay area residents following the Loma Prieta quake of October 17, 1989. East Bay Municipal
Utility District suffered over 100 pipeline breaks, the worst of which was a 60 -inch main break that took 5
days to repair. The City and County of San Francisco reported 115 breaks; 65 of the breaks were in the
Marina area and were repaired within 5 days. The City of Santa Cruz experienced 50 breaks, issued a
boil-water order, and service was restored to almost the entire city within one week
Nortbridm CA 1994 Magnitude 6.7 - A MET feeder (main trunk line) ruptured, and was repaired in 3
days. The most damage was incurred by the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (LADWP) that
suffered over 1,000 breaks:
— The Northridge quake caused damage at 15 locations in three transmission systems [LA
Aqueducts 1 & 2, MET Foothill Feeder], 74 locations in water trunk lines [24" and larger], with
damage concentrated in the LADWP Van Norman complex, and 1,013 locations in the LADWP
distribution piping system'
— LADWP's water system facilities incurred extensive damage throughout the San Fernando
Valley and in the Sherman Oaks area. There was also localized damage to water supply systems
in the West Los Angeles area and throughout the eastern San Fernando Valley. Immediately
following the earthquake, approximately 100,000 customers were without water,, and a citywide
' "Using GIS to Assess Water Supply Damage from the Northridge Earthquake" O'Rourke, Thomas and S. ToprdL
NCEER Bulletin Vol. l I No. 3 icily; 1997.
Doer. %-oa� 447
SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment
"boil water" advisory was issued. Within 5 days, water service was restored to all but a few
thousand customers; after 10 days, less than 100 scattered customers were without water. All
"boil water" orders were lifted after 12 days. The Department of Water and Power estimates that
repairs of earthquake damage to the city's water system will cost approximately $40 million.'
Several water tanks in the region had to be taken out of service because of broken and damaged
valves. One tank in Valencia collapsed totally. But, there were no reported wells damaged by
the 1994 Northridge quake, although well supply was interrupted in places due to power
outages. With power restored, groundwater supply then depended on whether the street mains
in the vicinity of the well were intact or not
0
0
' "Preparing for the Big tine' - Saving Lives Through Earthquake Mitigation in Los Angeles, CA US Dept. of Housing
and Urban Development, Jan. 1995. .
oa++�m-0s 4-48
• SECTION FOUR Risk assessment
l •
.•
Figure 4.4.2.1 -1
Active Geologic Faults.in/near Orange County
Bernardino County
\
P
It
\ y
PEE +t,MILL8_
FA utr LIN
Riverside
LosA
ngeres _ Z r ��a county
County F L -
o�"Ifiodamoc 4-49
m
All,
CH MD
• SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment
4.4.2.2 Percentage of Water Supply Outage Caused by Earthquake
Loss of water supply in a major earthquake could range from zero to 100 % depending on the specifics of
the earthquake and the impacts to the local and regional water system. The percentage of supply loss
depends very: much on whether there are redundant supply systems, such as local wells and the MET
imported water system It is not possible to determine exactly what damage a certain earthquake will
cause to the individual water systems in Orange County that have different pipe materials, different tank
construction, different soils, etc. The approach taken herein is to derive a "supply loss function ", an
educated estimate of "local'. (non -MET) supply loss (or temporary interruption) due to a major
earthquake. The percent of local supply loss will increase with quake magnitude and decrease with
distance from the subject fault The local supply loss function is shown at the top of Table 4.4.2.2 -1 The
assumed percentage of temporary local supply losses for each water utility due to strong quakes on each
of five faults are shown in the main portion of the table 4.4.3 -6. These percentages are based on the
assumed magnitude of the particular quake and on each utility's proximity to the 'subject fault The entire
service area of each utility is assumed to suffer the same loss of local supply. For example, for Huntington
Beach in a Newport- Inglewood 6.9 quake, the shaking intensity map indicates shaking intensity VIII, and
the loss function.gives 40% loss of local supply, which is well water. That is, in this scenario, Huntington
Beach temporarily loses 401/o of its well water supply, that is normally 40.6 ch; (see Section 1.3 Table 1.3-
5); 60% or 24.4 cis remains available to deliver to customers.
f. In addition to -the local supply loss;.a powerful quake could also damage the MET Diemer Treatment
Plant and/or the MET distribution feeders. Pipelines crossing a particular fault are more likely to be
damaged than pipelines not crossing. Due to the existence. of mainline valves and feeder
interconnections other portions of MET feeder may remain in service while one reach is severed An
estimate of water supply outage including both MET system damage and local supply (usually wells) loss
is shown on Table 4.4.2.2 -2.
' • o ax,aaas 4-55
E
SECTION FOUR
E
Risk Assessment •
Table 4.4.2.2 -1
Possible Loss (2) of Local Water Supply due to Earthquake in/near Orange County
by Retail Agency as a Percentage of Normal Local Supply Rate
OCWD
Basin
El Toro WD
Laguna Bch CWD
Moulton Ni el
South San Clemente
OC San Juan Capo
V1
Local Supply Loss
IX
P12s a Function of
Sub-
Quake Intensity
Region
IX
Brea/
Brea
LaHabra
La Habra
IX
Anaheim
VII
Buena Park
OCWD
Basin
El Toro WD
Laguna Bch CWD
Moulton Ni el
South San Clemente
OC San Juan Capo
V1
VII
IX
VI
VIII
vi
VII
IX
VI
VIII
VII
VIII
IX
VII
VII
VII
VIII
IX
VII
VII
VI
VIII
VIII
VII
VII
VIII
VII
vii
VIII
V1
vil
VIII
IX
VII
VII
VII
VII
VIII
VII
VII
VI
Vill
VIII
VII
vil
VI
vlil
IX
VII
Vlll
VII
VII
VIII
VII
VII
III
vil
VII
VII
VI
VII
VII
VII
VIII
VI
VII
vii
VIII
VII
VII
VIII
Vil
VII
VIII
VI
VIII
VII
VII
VIII
vi
VII
vii
VII
VII
VII
VI
VIII
VIII
VII
VIl
VII
VII
VII
VIII
VII
VIll
VII
VII
VII
VI
VI
VIII
VBI
VII
VII
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
VII
VIII
VII
vil
VII
VI
VI
VIII
IX
vi
VIII
VI
vi
VI
VIII
VI
VI
V1
VI
VIII
VI
vi
VI
VI
VIII
VI
VI
VI
V1
VII
VI
vi
VI
VI
vii
VI
VI
VI
vi
V11
VI
VI
VI
V[
VII
VI
V1
V1
vl
VII
V1
vi
VI I
VI
VII
v1
(I) TheposdWe lam ofloul wYea supply Yarn wWd be duc toditM damge widirtatawxa D'vecl dumge mould italude dsstug to swll wlumuar the vull hed piping duaugem
xell poop egwpmwg dunsgmdist aibutim syYVn piping pdsblerver taik;dd. Mditea emvm wWd irclde elearicd powsoa[a�, electranie devise problems, sewegc
conlarmWion,q Y. Nptnal, proWwe ereea�uad bbe wauetheWmer tlw wbjea u[uutothe satiw fatal, YMw�s soilomdniam can also bea Ylp,ifiunt factor. The
nugtiNdu o[losseaahow hoc veamtcWiY Spewlaiw. Loss Gcmrdoestua glyto imp nd(Metmpoloun)w .pply.
(2) TT tnrimW Momant M.gnitude ofeWquake faults in mwr Omg County. So m:Fiw Euthquake Swouiu Oroud Motive Mapsfm Nmnh Onng Cowtynponpe"
by Esd Caruultam Imanaiatd for W%MM in July 2005. •
UM DowmentlTS L06 4 -56
• SECTION FOUR
Risk Assessment
Table 4.4.2.2 -2
Possible Water Shortage in Event of a Major Earthquake in Orange County
by Retail Water Agency
Sm - MWDOM ead6gadm vuiap assammt as dctoibod m Se 4 .42.1.
1. lisle or noshwage For Brea and La Habra asmns MEf water will be avadaW through the Lowy Feeder.
2 little or nosbonage for Up— Beach CWD assumes MET w rwill be available ihrwgh the Coe#Supply line.
• URIS Doaane tlTG 1Oe 4 -57
SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment •
4.4.2.3 Economic Impacts from Water Shortages
MWDOC and the Orange County Business Council (OCBC) analyzed the impacts of water shortages for
both short -tern emergency situations and for longer-term drought situations. "Determining the Value of
Water Supply Reliability in Orange County California" was published in September 2003. The findings
from the study are included in Appendix A. Use of the data provides a basis for valuing the benefits of
mitigation projects that reduce shortages. Cost impact evaluations were run for the three regions of
Orange County (Brea/La Habra, OCWD, South Orange County) under the following scenarios:
Emergency Shortages: 20%,400/% 60% and 80% for durations of 10, 20,30 and 60 days.
Drought Shortages: 5% and 20% for durations of one, two and three years.
The loss estimation values performed via the GIS system (Section 4.4) did not include the economic
impacts due to business losses and residential inconveniences from suffering shortages. It is expected that.
specific proposals submitted to FEMA for funding will include these estimates, as they can be
considerable. For.erample, a 10-day shortage of 80% in South Orange County will .involve business .
impacts of $238 million and residential impacts of $55 million for a total impact of $293 million in 2002.
dollars. An 80% shortage can easily occur in South Orange County in the event one of the major fault
lines experiences a major earthquake that could disrupt the Diemer Filtration Plant (single 'source of
treated imported water to South Orange County) or the two main pipelines that deliver the water to South
Orange County. •
4.4.3 At Risk Populations
At -risk, populations were addressed in the Orange County HMP and the HMWG anticipates those same
populations would be at risk by hazards that affect water and wastewater infrastructure.. However,
individuals working within the facilities (i.e. administrative buildings, wastewater treatment plants) that
are found to be at risk from specific hazards would be at risk if a disaster occurred during working hours.
4.4.4 Analysis of Land Use
Land use was analyzed as a component of the Orange County HMP. The PWU in the Orange County
Water and Wastewater Multi - Jurisdictional HMP took land use patterns into consideration in developing
their goals and objectives for mitigating hazards within their jurisdictions.
4.4.5 Analysis of Development Trends
Development trends were analyzed as a component of the Orange County HMP developed by the County
and participating cities. Tlie PWUs in the MWDOC HMP took these development trends into
consideration in developing their goals and objectives for mitigating hazards within their jurisdictions.
•
Ms Doer. mn s oaos 4-58
• SECTIONFOUR Bid Assessment
4.5 MULTI - JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSMENT
It should be noted that individual risk assessment maps were completed for each of the 19 PWUs districts
as well as MWDOC._Hazard profile maps were created at a 1:24,000 scale. Critical facility information,
infrastructure and hazard areas for each of the jurisdictions were reviewed with respect to the Hazard
maps. Jurisdictional HMWG leads worked within their. Local Mitigation Planning teams to review
damage acrd identify their jurisdictional Goals, Objectives, and Mitigation Measures. Due to concern for
sensitivity of information depicted on these localized maps, only the County-scale maps are included in
the Plan.
4.5.1 Data Limitations
It should be noted that the analysis presented here is based upon "best available data ". See Appendix B
fora complete listing of. sources and their unique data limitations (if any). Data used in updates to this
plan should be reassessed upon each review period to incorporate new or more accurate data iftwhen
possible.
me. mnnua,os 4-59
SECTIONFOUR
Risk Assessment
Table 4.4.2 -1
Unit Replacement Costs of Facilities
$1,000's (1}
Abbedation
Name
Replacement Cost {51,000'5)
WST
Water Storage Tank
513,000
RES
Reservoir
$22,300
WiP
Water Treatment Plant (Darner Filtration Plant)
$250,000
PS
Pump Station (South County Pump Station)
$35,000
PRS
Pressure Reducing Station (MET facility)
$2,900
EIT
Emergency Inerties
$300
SC
Service Connector
$1,800
ADM
Administration (large administration bolding)
$30,000
LS
Wastewater Pump Station/Lift Station
$444
WWfP
Wastewater Water Treatment Plan
$30,000
WELL
Well
$3;500
PP
Power Plant (MET Yorba Linda Power Plan)
$12,000
(1) Based on the highest cost for typical facility from among the PWUs' facility
values submitted These results are conservatively high replacement costs for
some retail agencies.
•
•
SECTIONFOUR Riskassessment
Table 4.4:2.2
Summary Assets
M Regional eatersystama identified ham are ca•avmed and managed by muMpla u513Jes.
tRS ......x��w.,.om.so 4.61
El
9XISTING
�=ErrtuliE?.^'
1;
pg
qli
'«
sYP�
P 3d {r
Guam Park
a
0
0
225
1
1
IB
4
0
2,800
19,250
2
0
0
0
0
➢
a�9YO"
EITMWD
0
1
0
130
5
11
24
4
13
1500
10080
3
182
1
10050
10
Mm
MOM
00M
Gudm Grow
1 1 2
0
1 0
418
B
5
2
1 4
8
4110
1 33.926
1 2
3 3 7
0
SXG28
3-
n
1
t.a Naar.
1
0
0
113
0
7
57
1 4
8
1,479
12,548
0
152
0
0
0
.. 0 ,
1.
sR
- :'
1."
IN —
Laguna Laguna Each Gcunty
0
0'
0
731
21
11'
9
3
a
0
9,488
2
0
0
0
0
.0 .."4e.
c-
A'".MO °r-ti h'*r"�jdry
RUN
72S+`
Mew WnwlleatW WD
(MESA]
9
0
'1
349
3
2
3
3
15
3.483
23388
1
0
0
0
0
•. ll
a0
- �0'�_.
M"D
0
0
0
750
41
28
15
14
17
4.500
52,123
2
570
0
50782
11
Newport &adi
2
1
0
210
2.
5
43
0
13
1,650
28
1
250
0
2A3, sw
20
a. !.
0., County
9anNWun Dlabitl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
1
780
2
a
1e
�.'
-+1�.
fir "qr:°.`
9
+�n,c'M'C0'm•
...
oma'.Coun?I'waty
DWict
0
17
1
:58
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
18
0
a
0
Ounce
to
0.
0
41
18
I8
11
a -
is
4,239 "
31.000
3
a
a
a
0
, �,
n- 3i� ; * ;.
+
z .'P;,:'."
'jra0�
_.U_'=
Sant Nugent.M
2
2
0
552
u
49
33
22
4
4250
57,002
1
548
3
50500
19
3
n
�_ ,.�
n 0. '.
,i
ii.. Fi1s_�
"F�20
U:..e
Semme WO
3
1
1
w
2
5
0
2
0
270
2,350
2
0
0
a
0.
T
'0 .�'
SOWlA
g
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
2
'25
4
0
1
POY
52kM1r
South QmdM
a
1
0
185
13
9
19
4
19
1,500
12,557
5
151
1
18500
14
Trahum CmyonWe
3
2
1
85
8
12
a
5
5.
S50
4000
2
47
1
3.900
0
Oi' %'
T.Wa
13
0
2
In
a
4
0
7
4
1925
14500
3
0
9
0
'0
o-)i ,•
X_
�Y {01".7'
3n'U
WaaOnlnew
14.
0
0
149
2
4
'0
1
0
2,550
19,900
1
0
0'
Yarba11nd4W0
9
0
0
OW
13
12'
37
4
10
3815
22939.
2
147
0
0
1
Jandwam's M.
0
2
0
94
0.
0
0
1
0
0
0.
0
10'
0
0
0'
_
0
eaOZC:.
X20
'0. ! ?;<
MET BO: Ctl
0
1
1
122
0
1
0
0
1
0.
0
0
0
9
0
0
r;0, w:uY0.
i!'
MWga
0
0'
0
0
0
0
D
0
M Regional eatersystama identified ham are ca•avmed and managed by muMpla u513Jes.
tRS ......x��w.,.om.so 4.61
El
SECTIOHFOUR MskAssessment
Table 4.4.3-3
f&derste Earthquake Threat mm
(t) Moderate earftiake defined as having a peak ground acceleration of OS to OAS .. a 7,361
(2) Based -the highest amt for typical facility from among ate PWlls' faciatyvaluts aubmitted Thex respite are, conservatively high repiaeemert costs for some ratan agencies.
1vS
RS
Abbraviaaan Key
P
P
Wafer Simape Tank
PRS
Ao
L
RES
WEL
W4VRiYY
ME1s
6][
OCds PS
ryR Y81aa
PRS•M
JprYQMnaa
P
-
WWfP
OCS
OC
WELL WON
PS
Ra
Cptl
WG.Va
1
8
0
1
0
0
2.
0.
a
a
3
2
2
8
S
4
3
4
0
2
0
2.
0
0
0'
0
7
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78.7
8.6
67.0
0 0
OO
2739
1902
a 86A
S MO.S
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
.0
0
a
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
.0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0.0
.0A
a
MNWb
MW00
New naearn
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
0'
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70.6
0A
9A
0.0
0.0
0.0
a 2 5.3
3A
OCSO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.0
287.7
157,7
OCWD
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
.0
0
0
-0
0
0
0`
0A
118
121.8
0
8
0
0
8
3
7
4
3
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
710.0
0. 0
a 470.6
Someone,
SMW
0
38
0
2
0
0
0
32
0
21
0
9
1
1
0
22
0
3
2
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.7
07.7
0.0
.12.6
10,3
$ .4
SOMA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
1
0
0
0.0
12.1
a 36.1
Coast WO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
1
0
- 01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.0
5 3
Trebuco
8
2
1
12
8
' 5
1
1
8
1
3
n
0
0
0
0.
0
20
0.0
1 250.1
Tustin.
6
0
2
4
0
a
7
2
0
0'
13
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
1837
0.0
3499
Westinster
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
452
a 60.3
area Linde
0
0
0
01
01
0,
0
0
0
ON
0
0
0
0
0
0:0
0.0
a
OINT
a
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
O.
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55.0.
0A
a 55.0.
MEf
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0-
0
-o
0
0
t
0
0
0
0
0
46.3
oA'a
839
(t) Moderate earftiake defined as having a peak ground acceleration of OS to OAS .. a 7,361
(2) Based -the highest amt for typical facility from among ate PWlls' faciatyvaluts aubmitted Thex respite are, conservatively high repiaeemert costs for some ratan agencies.
m....w�re.laim, 4.52'
Abbraviaaan Key
WET
Wafer Simape Tank
PRS
Pressure ReducinOStagon
LS Wastewater Pump Stator" Slogan
RES
Resen ok
Err
Emergency Irdenles
WVJfP Wastewater WaterTreahnenl Plant
WTP
Water Treatment Plant
SC
Service Connector
WELL WON
PS
Pump Station,
AbM
Administragon
1'P power pint
m....w�re.laim, 4.52'
SEMOFFOUR
Risk Assessment
Table 4.9.2.4
high Eaethgaake Threat to
Tavantery ofCrltial Pacilitlls and fnfreftTnctpre and Exposure Value By Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION
WS
:) Based no the higbost cal for typical 11WHty from among the PWLTs'&c ty values submitted These results ere,mawyadvoly high replacement coats for some retail ageocies. ' -
WT
P
LS - Wastewater Pump Steeordtgt Sbdlon
RES Reservoir Err . Emergency hdartles
AO
L
WELL Well
PS Pump Statkm ADM Admlydstrelon
..
OIENE
OCifP
PRS-M
.P
WWTP
SOCW
OC
OCS
pa
Roplaanaa
Coal f
Sums Dek
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93.6
0.0
93,3
EI Toro WO
4
1
0
5
1
7
1
4
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
01
01
0
9.7
OAS
1232
Garden Greve
Of
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
34.9
1__21A
La Kate
S
0
3
.. 24
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6A
0.0
3A
La gum 80MA CWD
21
0
0
12
4
4
. 3
_ 2
0
0.
0
0'
0
0'
0
'.' 0
0
0
16,7
0.0
S 323.3
MESA
3
0
1
3
3
. 13
3
2
'. 0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.8
0.0
S 136.7
MNWO
18
1
0
.; 16
0
6
4
2
.13
2
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
60.8
0.0E
3825
MWOOC
0
Ol
0
0
0
0
0
... 2
0
0
"'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ol
0.0
OA
E 8A
Newport Seaeh
2
1
0
5
43
13
6
1
16
0
2
0
0
'0
0
0
6
0
61.6
375
'S 176.7
OCSD
0
0
0
0
0
. 0.
0
., A
1 0
0,
0
0
'0
0
2
- 19
0.0
261.9
E 818.9
OCWO
1
14
1
1
0.
0
0
2
0
0
0
'0'
"O
'0
0
0
0
0
0
66.6
E '494.4
Oren a
12
0
0
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
158.6
OA
342A
Semeno
2
2
1
2
4
0
0
0
1'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12A
0.0
E 118.2
SMWO
0
0
0
0
0I.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.1
0.0
S 6A
SOCWA
0
0
0
2
0
. 1
0
0'
0
0
0
"0
3
0
0
0,0
25A
E 108.8
. Coast WD
16
1
0
12
4
4
14
1-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
259
OA
303.1
burn
0
0
0
0
0
ft
0.
0
0
0
'. 0
0
0
0
O
OA
0.0
Tustin
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
E 115
Westminster
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
OA
E 278A
Yoma LIMB WD
1
0
0
1
8
1
t
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
UOO
JOINT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MET
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
E 43.1
Nigh eaMquake throat daRned ae.hWfng a peak ground acalordon cfO.8 to 0.89.
. _.. It 3.986
:) Based no the higbost cal for typical 11WHty from among the PWLTs'&c ty values submitted These results ere,mawyadvoly high replacement coats for some retail ageocies. ' -
. .. Abbreviation Key
WST Water Storage Tank PRS Pressure Reducing Station.
LS - Wastewater Pump Steeordtgt Sbdlon
RES Reservoir Err . Emergency hdartles
WWTP Waoomtervater TmaOnen PWB
WTP Water Treatment Plant SC Service Connector
WELL Well
PS Pump Statkm ADM Admlydstrelon
PP Power Plan
SECTIOMFOUR x(aase :amain
Tabk4,4.2.5
' Eclrame Earthquakatlr .
. Inventories afClidal FadBtiva and lntrarractnro and Exposure Val" by Jurisdiction
NRISOKTION
j
RE
j
PB
P
J
J
AN
' LS Wastaweter Pump SlauarwUn Sidon
_
._WELL
01E
OC-al 04
PRS-MEI
Pill
WWTP
SOC'WA
OCSO
OCSO
PWL
WWL
Rspbamsn
Cal 8
Bue Park ..
Administration
....0
70
'. 0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
8 -
aToro.WO
0'
0
0
01
a
0
0
0
Of
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
0.0
Garden Grove
0
0
0
.. 0
..0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
OA
Le Hsbma
2
0
9
3
4
0.'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.]3.2
A
55,1
Laguna Beach CWD
. 0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0.OA
S
MESA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
OA
OA
8
NWD
0
0
0
0
..0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
OA
IAWDOC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
. OA
B
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
. 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.3
2,2
8 5,8
SD
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
OA
8,7
S 34.0
OCWD
01
0
0
0
01
0
0.
0
- 0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,0
OA
8
Orence
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
9
8anano
.01
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,0
OA
8
SMWD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
OA
SOCWA
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
0
0
0
". ' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
.S
So. Dead WO
0
0.
0
. 0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
61
0
0
OA
OA
8
Tmbuoo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
OA
S
sun
0
0
.. 0
.0
0
01
0
...0
0-
" 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
.0A
$
.Westminster
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
OA
YaNe LSWe WD
12
0
0
.1 i
20
8
4
1
.'' 0
0
7
0
I)
0
0
0
0
0
S3,T
4,7
S 250,8
JOINT
0
0
0
0
0
0
'1.
0
0
0
0
'0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0.0
OA
MET
0
1
0.
0
0
1
nj
01
1
.1
0
3
0
01
01
0.01
0.01
S 3160
. .. :.. .882
(1) Extreme earthquake thrat defined as hating a peek ground accdandion or0.8 to jig
(2) Based on the highest on for typical facility from among the PWVS.faoiNty values ni m tted. These results; are conservatively high replaosmem costs fat some retell agenda. .
o.d..mwws+ee .. 4.64
AbbrevlatIon Key
WST
Water Storage Tank
PRE
Preaeure Reducing Station
' LS Wastaweter Pump SlauarwUn Sidon
RES
Reservcir
Err
Emergency Internist;
WWTP Wadevsder WeterTmatmenl Plant,
WTP
WaterTreetmens Plant.
Sc
Service Connector -
WELL Well
PS
Pump Station
ADM
Administration
PP Power Plant
o.d..mwws+ee .. 4.64
SECTIONFOUR RhItASSessmeSt
Table 4.42.6:
SOD Year Mood Wald `
JURMICTION
WS
'.
Abbreviation Key
P
P
E
-PRS
AD
LS Wastewater Pump SIaBaMffi Sidon
RES
Reservoir
OIEN
Cull P
PR9.K
WTP
90CW
OCS
1.5
PW
PS
Replacema n
Coat
Buena Park
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
a
a
.' a
a
0
199.0
2432
352.8
El Tom WD
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
'0
.0
a
a
a
0
0
02
OA
1.3
Garden Orove
8
.0
0
5
2
7
3
'1
2
0
to
0
a
o
p
a
p
a
44,2
0.0
201.3
LB re
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a'
0
a
0
0
a
0.7
0'
La uns Beech CWD
1
0
0
1
O'
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0.1
0.01%
15.1
MESA
1
•0
1
t
0
2
0
0
0
.0
'. T
0
0
0
0
11
0
0.
T2
0.011
34.8
MNWD
0
.O
0
0
0
0
1
0.
1
0
.0
0
U
'0
O
0
0
'0
T.T
OA
$' 32
MWOOC
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
0'
a
0
0.
O.0
OA
6
N rt Beach
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
'O
1
0'
O
0
0
0
0
'O
5.8
45
6 11.6
OCSD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0.
0
0
0
q
0
B
OA
1882
$ 168.1
OCWD
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
O
0
O
0.
0
a
a
a
0
0
O
0.0
11.1
6 67.5
Ora
1
0
0
1
1
5
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
103.3
OA
6 1410
SerrUm
0
0
O'
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
1
O
a
0
a
0
a
0
0.8
00
5 4.3
MWD
0
O
a
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
02
OA
5 0.2
SOCWA
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
1
0
D
0
D
a
a
0
0
a
OA
6A
It
. COeet WD
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
06
OA
6
Trebuoo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
' 0
a
O'.
0
0
a
02
0.0
6
ustin
7
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
a
a
a
0
a
0
C
62.6
00
Westminster
2
1
1
3
3
1.
11
a
9
0
0
a
O
a
182.7
O.0
6
I
Yerbe. Lida WO
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
a
.7
D
0
0
a
O
a
8.6
0.6
:TSS*n
JOINT
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
a
p
U
O
a
O
O
16.6
00
$
MET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
D
0
a
a
0
36.3
OA
$ W.3
5 1,468
(1) Based en the hWw d cost for typical faa7itY from among &a PWUs' facility values submitted. These r=Its ere coatervatively hi56 replaC=Wt Cnste for tome rdaC ageadea
Ww - a,nw,MIYA,MYW 4.65
0
.
Abbreviation Key
WST
Water Storage Tank
-PRS
Pressure Ro&drg Staton
LS Wastewater Pump SIaBaMffi Sidon
RES
Reservoir
Err
Emergency lntertles
WNTP Wastewater Water Treatment Plant
WTP
WatorTmetmentPlant -
SC
Service Connector
WELL Well _
PS
Pump Station
ADM
AdmiNetetlon
- PP Power Plant
Ww - a,nw,MIYA,MYW 4.65
0
SECTIONFOUR BlskRssBssment
Table 4,4.26.
100 Year Flood Plain
Inventory of Critical Facilities and InlreshvHure and Exposure Value By Jurisdiction
imso CTIOR
WSF
RES
WI'P
PS
PR8
EII
SC
ADM
LS
WWTP
WELL
OIEMER
OC48
P8
PRS•
MET
I PP
WWTP•
SOCWA
WWTP.
OM
I.S.
OCSO
PWL
WW1.
Repbument
Cast Im
Bums Park
0
0
0
1 01
0
61
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9
0,0
S 2,9
El Tom WD
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OR
0,0
S 2.3
louden drove
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1-
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14d
$4.7
- $1.2
La Habra
Laguna Seem
CWD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,3
OA
0,0
OA
S 1,6
8 0,4
MESA
01
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0-
0
.. 0
0
0
0
0
0
8,8
OA
38
MflWc
6
1
0
o
t
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.5
0,0
S 38,8
MWDOC
0
0
0
0-
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
OA
0,0
S 3,0
each
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.0
9A
S- 62.1
OCSD
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
10
0,0
10,0
S 608.4
OCWD
t
11
1
1.
0
0
0
2
0
0
t2O
0
0
0
0
0
0
.OA
47.0
S 384,9
Oran e
1
0
0-
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,3
0,0
S 52,8
Semen
0
0
0.
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4A
0.0'
5.8
SMWD
0
0
..0
8
0
1
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.8
0,8
15.0
S CWA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
A4
4,8
Bo Coast WD
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
td
0,0
S 20,0
Tmbuoo
0
0
1
3
0
0
a
0.
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
0,0
S 18,1
Tuagn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,3
0,0
1,3
Weetminster
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72.7
0,0
832
Yatba LhWA WD
0
0
0
0
0
2
.0
-0
0
0
2
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
3.6
0,9
8 11.6
JOIN -
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,0
9.6
S 4.8
MET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
7,2
S 3,8
g 10115
(1) Based on the highest cost for typical facility from among the PWLW faallity veins submiRaL These results are conservatively high replacement costa for some rated ogenoin,
""T
•
e.n..nv.enanm 4-66'
Abbrvdation Key
WST
WaterSmrepe Tank
PRS
Prmsure Reducing Station
'LS Waslavwter Pump Station . Wit Station
RES
Resewdr
Err
Emergency lnterdes
WWTP WastevreterWaterTreatmem Plam
WTP
Walar TreebnentPlant
SC
Service Corrector
WELL Well. -.
PS
Pump Station
ADM
Admimsha6on
PP pow plant
""T
•
e.n..nv.enanm 4-66'
SECTI®NFOUR
Riskpssessmeat
Table 4.4.27
Slope Over2S%t Landsllde Hazard
Inventory of Critics) Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value By Jurisdiction
JUWSOIC1gN
W
R
WT
P
PR
Want Storage Tank
PRS
AO
L
RE8
Reaervdr -
DIEBE
Out PEI
..-M
WTP
WWiP
EOCW
OC
Service Connector
- WELL, Welt 1:. -" - .. - '-
P$
Saphgmen
Ceti 4
Owns Part
Et Oro WD
en Omve
01
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
o
2
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
D
D
D
0
0
a
a
a
0
0
D
0
a
D
0
0
0
0.7
0.9
0A
o
0.0
0
S 0.1
S 33.9
Lx Mabm
La eBeach CWD
0
B
0
o
0
0
1
4
'3
1
1
0
0
0
o
0'
A
0
0
0
0
.0
a
00
a
0
a
0
.O
0
0
0
OA
4.6
A
0.0
i
9. 190.0
MESA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
a
a
a
.O
0
a
0.1
OA
S 0.1
MNWD
MWDOC
t6
0
4
O
0
0
12
0O
0
1
0
1
0
0
.7
4
.0
1
0
0
'0
0
a
0
s
0
a
0
0
O0
a
a
0
a
252
0.0
OA3.
OAS
320.7
3.0
N RBIs ci
o
0.
o
o
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
O
'a
0
a
0
0
2.1
2A
i 4.3
OCSD
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0'
"' 0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
a
0
OA
BA
AO
CWD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
p
0
O.D
02
S 0.1
Orange
7
0
0
'6
2
2
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
0.
'30,6
OA
S 134.8
Serino
0
1
0
1
1
0
..O
0
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
.O,a
S 32.9
SMWD
16
0
0
2
10
2
1
0'
8
1
1
0
a
0
a
0
0
0
327
2.7
S 251A
BDDWA
0
.. O
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
3
0
a
0.0
6.2
S 93 1
So.Coas1WD
8
0
0
3
0
A
0
O
1
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
0
0
3A
0.0
S 89A
TraDUCO
2
1
0
4
0
. 2
0
0
.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0'
0
3.7
0,0
i 89S
Twtin
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
o
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.0
s 0.3
wesDmnatm
O
'O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
O
b
a
a
a
0
Yorba Undo WD
10
0
0
5
10O
2
'O
0
'O
" O
0
0
0
0
-O
'O
0
12A
0.3
5 156A
JOINT
O
O
e
e
O
O
O
O
0
-0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
0
11.9
0.0
11A
MET
0
0
D
0
0
O
0
0
.1
'O
O
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
11.9
0.0
S 93.9
(1) Based an the highest cost for typiod facility from among the PWUs' favililyvalucs submitted These reailts arc conservatively i $ 11372
Y fih replaoemenl costs for some retail ageaciss.
aae.eaaoaeaw - 467 .
AbbrwAaBon Kay
-
WST
Want Storage Tank
PRS
Pressure Reducing Staaon
.. LS -. - Wastewater Pump StatloMKt 6leUOn
RE8
Reaervdr -
EIT
Emergency Interims
Wy47P WaStevmterWatetTmatment Plant
WTP
Water Treatment Plot
SC
Service Connector
- WELL, Welt 1:. -" - .. - '-
P$
Pump Station
AOM
AdmlrMmOOn
PP Power Plan[,. --
aae.eaaoaeaw - 467 .
SECf10HFOUR AiskAssessment
Table 4A:2.8
Uquefettion. Moderate
Inventory afpitimal Facilities and fnfnsh uctore and Exposure Value By Jurisdiction
NRISDpTpK
R
Abbraviallun Key'
!
P
Water Storage Tank
3
Ab
LS Wastewater Pump S1e6onAA Station
REB
Reservoir
pIEl1E
OC•et
PRS•NE
P
WwTP
60C1Y
yff7TP
OC
OCSD
INIM.
WIVIL
Replcmmm
Cost i
Buena Pads
11
0
0
1
51
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
44A
OA
88.0
El Toro WO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0.0
OA
S
Garde ve
8
D
0
2
0
1
2
1
2
0
5
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
2 7
12 .3
180.2
La Nabs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0.0
S
LC una Beech CWD
0
0:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0'
0.0
0.0
S
MESA
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
S 42.6
NWD
1
1
0
0
01
1
2
1
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0:0
0.0
S 67.0
MWDOC
0
0
'. 0
0
0
0
0
1
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
0.0
S .3.0
Norman Bunch
0
0.
O
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
OA
0.0
S 1.8
OCSD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0"
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
OA
141.3
S 140A
OCWD
- 0.'
. 2
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
OA
&O
S 82.6
O
4
0
0
8
2
3
2
3
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
216.1
0.0
S 324.6
Serreno
. 0
0
1
0
0
0
2'
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
0.0
S 14.7
SMWD
1
0
a
2
1
1
3
0
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.7
3.8
452
SOCWA
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
S
80. Coast WO
1
.0
0
2
0
a
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
a
0
D
0
0.0
S 28.0
Trabum
0
0
D
0
0
00
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
S
NeDs
1
0
1
1
. 0
1
2
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
S 131.0
Westminster
0
0
0'
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0.
0'
0
0
0
0
d4"3
OA
S .68.1
Yorbe Linde.WD
0
.0.
0
0
3
6
0
0
D.
0
0
0
'0'
0
0
0
0
OA
S 2A
JOINT
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
18.3
MET
0
0
0
0
D
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
QO
3 21.3
S 1,200
(1) Stand on the hlgheer cost for typical facility from among the PWtls'facility values submi0ed. These ore cunsavatively high replacerawtcosts fmsome retail agemuse.
Um NNN- ".m 4.68 ..
Abbraviallun Key'
WST
Water Storage Tank
PRS
Pnaseuro Reducing3tation
LS Wastewater Pump S1e6onAA Station
REB
Reservoir
Err
Emergency lnter6es
WWTP Wastewater WaterTreaamenl Plant
WTP
Water Treatment Plant
SC
Service Connector
WELL Well �
PS
Pump Slogan
ADM
Adminiata0on
PP .Power Plan
Um NNN- ".m 4.68 ..
0
SECTIOHFOUR 6iskASgegsmoH[
. Table 4:4.2.9.,
Liquefaction. High
Inventory of Critical FadDtks and Infraftrmetureand ESpoanre Value By Jurisdiction
NNIS010710N
RE
AbbnNetion Key
P
Water Storage Tang
PRS
AM
LS Wastewater Pump StatialNR Station
RES
W
CIEU
OUS P
PBSB
WTP
wwp.
SO;w
OC
OCS
WELL -Well '
PS
Rapbuma
Cwt f
Suene Park
O
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
S
0
0
0'
' 0
0
0
17B.8
0
S 206.1
El Tao WD
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0:,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA.
O
S
Carden
1'
0
0
1
2
2
a
1
1
'0
3
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
17.6
.84.7
8918
La'Halus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0.0
00
S
Le urea Beech CWD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-a
. 0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
CA
0,0
, 5
MESA
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
O
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.3
CA
$ 27.3
MNWD
0
0
0
b
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
OA.
MWDOC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
0.
3.0
N rt 8eea
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
'0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.8
0.111
14.3
OCSD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0.0
213.1
S 888.8
OCWD
i
14
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
OA
41,51$
473.7
Orange
0
.0
0.
0
1
0
0
0
'p
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.8
0.013
31.8
Sornno
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1A
OA
S 1.4
SMWD
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'C
0.
o
'0
0
0
0
OA
SOCWA
0
0
0
01
01
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
o
OA
1.7
2 0.6
8o: Coast WO
01
0
0
0
01
O
o
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0.0
CA
Tretuoo
o
0
' o
o
0
0
0
0
0
'.o
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
OA
f
Tustin
0
0
0.
0
0
1
2
2
0
'0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81.2
OA
f 72,2
Westminster
2
a
0.
1
1
. 2
3
1
0
0
11
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
207.5
0A
S .279.8
Vorbs Unda WD
0'
0
1
1
2
0
1
0'
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
92
0.1,
48.6
JOINT
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
'2
0
0.
0
0
0
14.8
OA
f. 16.0
MET
'0
0
0,
0
0
0
0
0
' -0
0'
0
0
0
01
10.8
OA
10.8
f 1,881'
(1) Basedon the highest cost far typical fadllty from among the PWUs' fwIlty values subm*ed These ramps are conserwOvely high repwament costs fa some retail agemaies
tw ow..aea w 4.69
AbbnNetion Key
WST
Water Storage Tang
PRS
Preamne Radudng Station
LS Wastewater Pump StatialNR Station
RES
Reaervdr
Err
Emergency Intemes
W W`IP Wastewater Water Treatment Plant
WTP
Water Treatment Plant
SC
Service Connectar
WELL -Well '
PS
Pump Station
ADM
Adminlgratlon
PP Power Plant
tw ow..aea w 4.69
SERTIONFOUR BiskAssmment
Table4.4.240 . .
Liquefaction- Very WO
hsveatary of Critical Facllitias'.and Infrastructure end Exposure Value By Jurisdiction
RISOICTpN
W8
R
Abbmvlation Key
Pall
E
PRS
AD11
L
RES
WELL
DIEM
.OFISP
PR541
P
SOCW
OC6D
OCS
WELL VM .-
PS
Cost Ii
Corl S
Beene Perk
al
0
at
0
.01
0
.0
0
at
0
A
at
at
0
U
at
at
0
OA
OA
$�
a Taro WD
at
a
at
0
at
0
0
0
at
0
0
at
at
0
0
0
at
0
OA
0.0
$
Garden Grove
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
'o
0
0
.p
o
o
oA
o.o
.$
able
p
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
$
La Beach WD
0
0
0
A
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
pr
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
OA.
MESA
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
$
MNWD
o
0
0
o
C
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
$.
MWDCC
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
a
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0.0
010
S
N It Beach
0
0
0
0
S
1
0
0
11
0
0
6
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
OC 0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
4
OA
13.0
$ 46.6
Clem
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
1.5
S 0.8
Om e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
060
060
$
&omen
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
OA
$
SMWO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0.
OA
$
SOCWA
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
GAS
So. Coast WO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
010
OA
S
Tmhuno
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0-00.0
S
Tustin
0
0
A
A
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
S.
Wesbntnster
o
o'
o
o.
o
. o
o
o
o
p.
p
p
p
o
0
0
o
a
no
oA
$
yome Undo WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
OA
OA
$
JOINT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0.
0"
0
0
0
0
1.6
OAS
1.5
MET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
OA
0.0
$ OA
S 58
(1) Baled an the highest cast for typical facility from amcngthe PWVs' facilityvalm submitted Those results are cwuervatvely high replacement costs fur same rated agencies.
Um a...awaalnm 4.70
Abbmvlation Key
WST
Water Storage Tank
PRS
Pressure Reducing Sidon
LS Wastemter Pump Statton/tUt Station
RES
Reservoir
EIT
Emergency lntertles
VWVTP Wastewater WaterTmabnerd Plant
WTP
Warm Treatment Ptam
SC
Service, Connector
WELL VM .-
PS
Pump Swan
ADM
Administration
PP Power Plant
Um a...awaalnm 4.70
SFC'RONFOUR
Blskpssessment
Table 4.4.2.11 _
Low Fire Threat -
Anventorie of Critical Facilities sad InGastructure and Exposure Value By Jurpdtetoa
AWSOICT"
Will
REA
Abbreviation Key
PS
PRS
Ell
PRS
AD
LS Wastewater Pump StatiortUt Station
WWO
WILL
DIENER
CC41 PS
PRSAM
PF
SDCWA
OCSD
OCU
j
Wj
Rephemon
Coq 4
Buena Park
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
- p
0
0'
0
'5.5
- 0.01s
9
EI Toro
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
-0
0
a
p
0
0
0
0
a
0
- 0.3
0.0'5
283
OeMen
.0
0
0
0
D
0-
0
0
0
0
1
0
,_ 0
0
0
0
a
0
0.9
3.8
S 63
LL b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0.
0.3
OA
S .8
u Beech CWD
.0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0.
0
'. p
0
D
0
0
4
0
03
OA
0.S
MESA
0
0
0
1
0
0
0-
0
0
/
0
a
0
a
.0
0'
0
2.8
OA
S 6.6
MNWD
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
9
0
A
0
.0
D
0-
a
0
9A
0.0
- 392
MWDOC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
.D
-0'
0
OA
- OA
S
N Beech
0
1
0
0
S
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
a-
a
0
S3
5.9
S 3T.6
OCSD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
0
a
3-
0.0
' -24,8
S 42.6
O WD
0-
17
0
1
.0
0
0
'1
-0
'0'
0
a
0.
a
.a
0
0
0
0.0
16A
S 522.6
O e
2
0
0
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
a
0.
-a
a
0
-- 0
-- 0
12
OA
60.6
Borrow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
p
D
0.
0
'0
0
OA
OA
4A
BMWD
B
2
0
7
7
0
.9
1
5
0
1
0
a
a
.0
a
0
0
53A
5A
S 169.9
SOCWA
0
0
0
0
0
-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
- 0
0
0
OA
42
S 2.1
So. Coeat WD
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
a
.0.
p
a
0
0
0.5
0.0
S 13.9
Tmbum
2
2
1
1
- 0
0
' 0
a
a
0
0
2.7
0.0
S 330
Tustin
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
A
0
- 0
O
D
.. 0
D
. 0
1.8
OA
S 1.8
Wesbnl"nar -
2
-0
0
1
0
a
0
0
0
0
t
a
0
.0
0
a.
- 0
0
5.7
0.0
$ 37.5
Yorba Undo WD
,1
0
0
'2
9
0
1
0
- 0
0
2
0
0
0-
0
a
a
0
8.8
0.6
S 35.5
JOINT
0
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
22:8
- 0.0
S 22.6
MET
0
'0
/
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.8
0.0
S 27A
(1) Based oft "Shad cod for
typical fadlltyfiom among llmpWUs' facil' rry va{se,snbmitted lleereulp are ooaservadvelyhigh replacement cusp for some retail agmcie.
(2) Tustin d'isayee with the Haaos methodology assesmoent of Wi[dfue 4 building fire threats witbin the City of'COstk ad surrwodiog uainonrpwated water service area.
ms a.e...mvc m 4.71
Abbreviation Key
- ..
VAT
Water Storage Tank
PRS
Pressure Reducing Slticn
LS Wastewater Pump StatiortUt Station
RES
Reservoir
ER
Emergency [Mantles
W WTP. WastrAvtor Water Treatment Plant
WTP
Water Treatment Plant
SC
Serum Connector
WELL Wag '
PS
Pump Station
ADM
Aden Nmraden
pp power plat
ms a.e...mvc m 4.71
S#OTIONFOUR slskAssessmsnt•
. Table 4A.2 -12 .
FBgh Mie Tbieat ..
Inventory Of Critical Facilities end Iafre trnMo , and Eipssure Velm By Jarisdidden
JURI901CTpN
W
R
Wf
p
AON
.
'OIEBE
OCa1P
PRB.M
'p
OCS
I.S.
OC
PWL
WW
Replanman
Cell $
Siena Pam
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0-
01
01
0
0
0
01
0
0.0
0
s
El Taro WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
01
of
0
0
0
01
0
0.0
0.0
s
Gordon Grow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0.0
0.0
s
La Habra
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
01
0
-' 0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.. 0
0.0
0.0
0.2
Laguna Seach CWD
1
0
0
4"
0
0
1
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
1.3
OA
22.9
MESA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
OA
0.1
MNWD
2
0.
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
OA
s 29.3
MWDOC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0.0
0.0
s
Newport Beach
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
r 0
0
0"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.8
s 0.8
OCSD'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
1.3
0.7
0 WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
..0
.0
'0
0..
0.0
0.1
's 0.1
Orange
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
3.1
OA's
29,1
Samna
0
1
0'
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.7
OA
s 333
SMWD
1 21
0
0
4
41
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
.. 0
0
0
0
0
0
5.2
1.8
s 43A
SOCWA
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0.
01
OA
32
s 1.8
So. Coast WD
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.2
0.01S
28.2
Tmbum
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0.9
OAS
7.21
Tusvn
do
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
OA
Wesanlnster
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
..0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
OA
s
Vadfe Urwa WO
7
0
0
43
0
2
0
0
0
o
0
0
". 0
0
0
0
o
5.1
0.2
5. 108.0
JONT
0
0
. 0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
01'',
0
0
0
0
0
7.8
.' 0.0
s' 7.8
MET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0'
0..
00
1
0
'0
0
'9.4
0.0
5 21A
$ 329
(1) Bored on the highest cost ft typical facility liem among the PWUs' Guility values submitted. Thus results are oomervativdiy high replacement costs for some retail agencies.
(2) Tustin disagrees with the Haws mothodology aucumest Cf Wildfires &.building fun Ruts within the City of TuWn andserramding minemporawd water satin areas.
AbbraWation Key
WST Water Storage Tank PRS Pressure Redudng 8ta0mn LS Waslevaler Puny StaOor" Station
.RES Ressmotr Err Emergaay lnk&s WWTP Wastewder WOW TmahneM Piem
WTP WMaTmatmeni Plant SC swhw Ccnrmdw WELL Well
PS Pump Station ADM Administrallon PP Powa Phnd
47"
r.....naeeww 4-72
SEOMUFO.UR.
•
RIStRSSessment
Table 1.1.243
Extreme Fin Thiti t,
JURISDICTION
VISI
RE
ADbmvla0on Key
WET
E
PRS
ADN
., -LS Wactawatef PUmp.SIellanlLlll Station
RES
Reservoir
pEN
. OG/ PSI
PRS•M
P
WWTP
SOCW
OCSp'
tS
OC
' IRt
PS
Repheaman
Cam
Buena Park
M Tam WD
Garden Grove
Le Habra
Lacuna Beech CWO
MESA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0'
0.0
0.0
.0
0.01S
0.
0.01S
0A
0.015
6
S
0.0
MNWO
MWDOC
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
..0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0A
0,015
0,015
0.2
Newport Beach
OCSD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0A
0.0
0A
S
5 -.
OCWO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0A
010
5
Orane
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0.05
Sarno
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
010
0.0
MWO
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.
S 13A
SOCWA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
'0.0
S
So. Coast WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
010
0.0
S
Trainee
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 3
0.0
10.3
TYSWS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
OA
Westminster
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
S
Yorba Linda WD
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'.
0
"' � 0
0
0
OA
0.0
5 13A
JOINT
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
O 1
0.0
S 0.1
MET
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.0
0.3
$ n
(1) Based an the highest cast far typical facility from among the PWUs' 6citiry values wbmihad. These reauhs am conaervadvdy' high replacement vats for some rgaM agencies. .
(2) Tustin disagrees with the Heap methodology assessment of Wildfire & building fm Wrests within the City of Tustin and surrounding unineorporated won, svvix arc u,
t sw..aaeaervss 473
•
ADbmvla0on Key
WET
Water Starage Tank
PRS
Pressure Reducing Station
., -LS Wactawatef PUmp.SIellanlLlll Station
RES
Reservoir
Err
Emergency WerSas
WWTP Waskwatef Water Tmatmenl Piem
WTP
Water Trashnem Plant
SC
Service Connector
WELL Well -
PS
Pump Statl0n
ADM
Adminiatratlon
PP . Powar PlvY -' -
t sw..aaeaervss 473
•
SECTIONFOUR Riskpssessmedt ,
Table 4.4.2 -14
Moderate to Extreme Earthquake
Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line By Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION
Moderate Earth
uake
Hi h Earthquake
Extreme Earth . ake
PWL
WWI.
PWL
WWL
PWL
WWL
Buena Park
139.67
0
93.47
0
0
0
Ell Toro WD
8.64
0
9.73
0
0
0
Garden Grove
56.96
272.97
1.27
34.87
0
0
La Habra
0
0
6.43
0
13.25
0
Laguna Beach WD
0
0
16.73
0
0
0
MESA
.0
0
32.80
0
0
0
MWDOC
46.34
0
43:08
0
1 0.
0
MNWD
30.63
0
1 .60.88
0
1 0
0
Newport Beach
0
0
1 61.60
37.29
1 3.27
2.24
OCSD
0
287
1 0
251.88
1 0
9.72
OCWD
0
11.59
0
66.79
0
0
Orange
310.00
0
158.59
0
0
0
SMWD
103.69
1 2.83,
4.07
0
0
0
SCWD
0.28
0
25.92
0
0
0
Serrano
0.28
0
25.92
0
0.
0 ..
SOCWA.
0
12.14
0
25.64
0
0
Trabuco
26.66
0
0.3
0
0
0
Tustin
183.71'
0
11:79
0
0
0
Westminster
45.23
0
210.64
0 .:
0
0
Yorba Unda WD
0.
0
18.09
6.01
53.70
4.71
JOINT
55.03
0
68.27
.0
0
0
MET
46.34
0
4308
0:
0
1 0
(1) Moderate, high and extreme earthquake events defined as having peak ground accelerations of 0.5 to
0.6g, 0.6 to 0.8g and 0.8 to 1.2g, respectively.
(2) Based on the highest cost for typical facility fiem among the P WUs' facility values submitted. These
results are conservatively high replacement costs for some retail agencies.
(3) Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12" and larger pipes with some exceptions.
Abbreviation Key
PWL Miles of Potable Water Line
WWL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line
n D�du*ad-wSDo 4 -74
.0
•
• SECTIONFOUR
:•
Risk Assessment
Table 4.4.2-15
Flood: 100 Year and 500 Year
Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line By Jurisdiction
JUR)SDICTION
Flood -100 Year
flood 500
Year .
PWL
WWL
PWL
WWL . .
Buena Park
2.94
0
198:96
243.17
EI Toro WD
0.83
0
0.16
0
Garden Grove
14.07
64:67
44.16
0
La Habra
0.34
0
0.75
0
Laguna Beach WD
0.43
0
0.10
0
MESA
8.81
0
2,24
0
MWDOC
0
7.21
36.30
0,
MNWD
3.52
0
2.17
D
Newport Beach
10.1
9.61
5.83
4.50
OCSD
0
10.89
0
196.15.
OCWD '
0
47.89
0
11.07
Orange
29.26
0
103:31,
0
SMWD
5.80
0.55
0.17
0
SCWD
1.09
0
.0.57
0
Serrano
1.09
0
0:57
0 .
SOCWA
0
6.38
0
4.96
Trabuco
1.32
0
.0.23
7 0
Tustin
2.07
0
62.55
0
Westminster
72.66
0
182:71
0
Yorba Linda WD
3.54
0.87
6.52
0.60 ,
JOINT
0
9.56
15:55
. 0
MET
0
7.21
36:30
1 0
(1) . Based on the highest cost for.typiW facility from among the PWUS' facility values submitted These
results are conservatively.highreplacement casts for some retail agencies.
(2) Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12" and larger pipes with some exceptions.
Abbreviation Key
PWL Miles of Potable Water Line
WWL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line
0o 00 sad ffi= 4 -75
SECTIONFOUR
Risk Assessment
Table 4.4.2-16
Landslide
Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line By Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION
landslide
PWL
WWL
Buena Park
0.10
0
E1Toro WD.
0.94
0
Garden Grove
0
0
La Habra
0.37
0
Laguna Beach WD
4.55
0
MESA
0.15
0
MWDOC
11.87
0
MNWD
25.16
0
Newport Beach
2.07
2.79
OCSD
0
5.96
OCWD
0
. 0.24
.Orange
30.60
0
SMWD..
22.73
.2.66
SCWD .
3.45
0
Serrano
3.45
0
SOCWA
0
6.22
Trabuco
3.70
0
Tustin
0.25
0
Westminster
0.09
0
Yorba Linda WD
12.60.
0.35
JOINT .
nL-
11.90
0 .
MET
11.87
0
(1) Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12" and larger pipes with some exceptions.
Abbreviation Key
PWL Miles of Potable Water Line
W WL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line
On D,.,,� W-Od WSDa 4 -76
0
i
• SECTIONFOUR BiskAssessment
•
•.
Table 4.4.2 -17
Moderate to Very High Liquefaction
Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line By Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION
Moderate Liquefaction
High Li uefactiou
Very High
Li uefaction
PWL'
WWL
PWL
WWL
PWL
WWL
Buda Park
44:40
1 0
175.90
0
0
0
EI Toro WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
Garden Grove
23.73
129.28
17.56
84.72
0
0
La Habra
0
0
0
0
0
0
Laguna Beach WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
MESA
0
0
1134
0
0
0
MWDOC
21.32
0
10.77
0
0.37
0
MNWD
0
0
0
0
0
0
N Beach
0
0
6.85
0.11
0
0
OCSD'
0
141.27
0
213.10
0
12.98
OCWD
0
4.95
0
41.46
0
1.54.
Orange
21605
0
20.77
0
0
0
SMWD
8.66
3.27
0
0
0
0
.SCWD
0
0
0
0
0
0
Serrano
0
0
0
0
0
0.
SOCWA
0
0
0.
1.68
0
0
Trabuco
0
0
0
0
0'
0
Tustin
76AB
0
61.21
0
0
0
Westminster '
48.33
0
207.54
0
0
0
Yorba LihdaWD
0
0
9.15
0.13
0
0 .
JOINT
18:29
0
14.81
0
1.75
0
MET
21.32
0
10.T7
0
0937
0
(1). Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12" and larger pipes with some exceptions.
Abbreviation Key
PWL Miles of Potable Water Line
WWL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line
a
oow"SmW'Dnaasbo 4-77
SECTIONFOUR RiskAtSessmem •
Table 4.4.2 -18
Low to Extreme Wildlife/Structure Fire
Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line By Jurisdiction
Milan
JURISDICTION
Low VYddlifelStructureFire
RighVAIdIffalStructure
Fre .
ExlretneWiidlifelStnxtureFire.
PWL
WWL
PWL
WWL
PWL
WWL
Buena Park -
5.51
0
.0
0
0
0
El Toro WD
0.33
0
0
0
0
0
Garden Grove
0.87
3.83
0
0
0
0
La Habra
0.31
0
0
0
0
0
Laguna Beach WO
0.30
0
1.31
0
0.01.
0
MESA
2.79
0
0.08
0
0
0
MWDOC
15.79
1 0.
9.42
0
0.25
0
MNWD
9.14
1 0
1.25
0.
0.20
0
Newport Beach
3.26
5.88
0.10
0.57
0 _
0
OCSD
0
24.59
0
1.30
0 ' `
0
OCWD
0
14.98
0
0.14
0 -
0
Orange
12.34
0
3.07
0
0.
0
Santa Margarita
23.64
5.03
5.20
1.46
0.32
0.16
SCWD
0.19
0
0.24
0
0
0 .
Serrano.
0.19
0
0.24
0
0
0
SOCWA
0
4.16
0
3.17
0
0
Trabuco
2.70
0
0.93
0
1.33
0
Tustin
1.55.
0,
0
0
0
0
Westminster
5.70
0
0
0
0
0
Yorba Linda WD
8.84
0.59
5.11
0.23
0.02
0
JOINT
22.62
0
7.58
0
MET
15.76.
0
9.42
0
0.25
0
(1) Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12" and larger pipes with some exceptions.
(2) Tustin disagrees with the Hazus methodology assessment of Wildfire & building fire threats within the
City. of Tustin and surrounding unincorporated water service areas.
Abbreviation Key
PWL Miles of Potable Water Line
WWL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Une
MS Do VM*4D �Dc 4 -78
•
•
• SECTIANFIVE
11
Risk Assessment
SECTION 5 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF ASSETS, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
5.1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
Planning is the cornerstone to successful hazard mitigation efforts. Citizens, local government, and
private interests with proactive policies can reduce the damages and impacts to the man -made
envirpnment in banns way. Benefits realized by implementing hazard mitigation measures include:
• Saving lives by removing people from hazard prone situations
• Limiting property damage by regulating development in hazard areas
• Reducing economic impacts by minimizing outages of essential services during and after these
events.
•, Saving money for taxpayers by reducing the need for services during a disaster
• Speeding disaster recovery and post - disaster relief funds
• Demonstrating a strong commitment to the health and safety of the community.
Relocating people, institutions, and businesses from hazard prone areas saves property and lives. Removal
or protection of the structures means that there is less to pay for disaster recovery or for services during an
event. Having alternative service plats for essential services, such as water, protects structures from fire
and allows residents and businesses to continue functioning or to restore normal functions quicker
following a disaster. Post= evern, recovery crews will have less to do because there will be less damage.
Implementation of these measures speeds the overall recovery process.
5.1.2 Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Generalized goals are defined as guidelines explaining what each jurisdiction wants to achieve.in terms of
hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long- range, policy - oriented statements
representing jurisdiction -wide visions. Objectives are statements that detail how each jurisdiction's goals
will be achieved, and typically define strategies or implementation steps to attain identified goals. Other
important inputs to the development ofjurisdiction -level goals and objectives include performing reviews
of existing local plans, policy documents, and regulations for consistency and complementary goals, as
well as soliciting input from the public.
Each jurisdiction reviewed the Risk Assessment presented in Section 4 and utilized the information as a
guideline for developing mitigation goals and objectives.. Other information was also considered,
especially local knowledge of the risks and mitigation options. Jurisdictional leads then met with their
individual LRP to identify appropriate jurisdiction -level goals, objectives, and mitigation action items.
Section 5 of the Plan incorporates each of the twenty (20) PWUs: 1) mitigation goals and objectives, 2)
mitigation actions and priorities, 3) an implementation plan, and '4) documentation of the mitigation
planning process. Each of these steps is described below.
oo«.aem+woaaasoc 5 -1
SECTIONFIVE 6iSkAssessment •
5.1.3 Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions
Mitigation actions that address the goals and objectives developed in the previous step were identified, .
evaluated, and prioritized These actions form the core of the mitigation plan Jurisdictions conducted a
capabilities assessment, reviewing existing local plans, policies and regulations for any other capabilities
relevant to hazard mitigation planning. An analysis of their capability to carry out these implementation
measures with an eye toward hazard and loss prevention was conducted. The capabilities assessment
required an inventory of each jurisdiction's legal, administrative, fiscal and technical capacities to support
hazard mitigation planning. After completion of the capabilities assessment, each jurisdiction evaluated
and prioritized their proposed mitigations. Each jurisdiction considered the social, technical,
administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental (STAPLES) opportunities and constraints of
implementing a particular mitigation action This step resulted in a list of acceptable and realistic actions
that address the hazards identified in each jurisdiction
A full suite of goals, objectives and action items for each jurisdiction was prioritized in this Plan. An
implementation schedule, funding source and coordinating individual or agency will need to be finalized
at each PWU. The greatest obstacle to implementation of the prioritized projects is funding. Each agency
will have its own strategy for funding of the projects. Some will be included in the Capital Improvement
Plans, some will be budgeted within the next few years as revenues permit, and some will have to wait for
water rate increases or outside funding to help provide the catalyst for moving the projects forward: Each
agency will proceed with the prioritized projects in a manner consistent with that agencys:budget and
priorities. •
5.1.4 Prepare an Implementation Pian
Each jurisdiction will prepare a strategy for implementing the mitigation actions identified in the previous
step in the coming year. The implementation strategies will identify who is responsible for each action,
what kind of finding mechanisms and other resources are available or will be pursued, and when the
strategies will be completed. Each agency will utilize current approved planning documents that identify
specific 'implementation strategies for capital improvement, risk reduction, system upgrades, and
operations, which include details regarding who is responsible for project management, estimated costs,
possible finding sources, and timelines for.implementation. These plans complement the Plan and include
but are not limited to:
A. Strategic Plans
B. Capital Improvement Plans
C. General Plans
D. EPA Vulnerability Assessments and ERP
E. Asset Management Plan
Each jurisdiction determined that the Risk Assessment identified all of the significant hazards that exist
for the overall regional planning area. Although certain hazards (e g. coastal hazards) affect limited:
jurisdictions, no new or previously unidentified hazards were identified by any of the jurisdictions for
inclusion in the jurisdictional- specific elements of this Plan., •
Uooamem,wonanwc 5 -2
• SECTIQNFIVE BisKAssetsment
5.2 REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the Plan incorporates the goal% objectives, and actions developed by the HMWG for each
jurisdiction as well as the regional planning area as a whole. The Plan includes specific goals, objectives,
and mitigation action items that each of the participating jurisdictions developed to help minimize the
effects of the specified hazards that potentially affect their jurisdiction. In addition, regional goals,
objectives, and actions were identified for the HMWG for both water and wastewater.
It is envisioned that the mitigation actions for the most part will be implemented on a jurisdiction-by-
jurisdiction basis. MWDOC will provide facilitation, as appropriate, of this process to help reduce
duplication of efforts between jurisdictions and to spearhead coordination of initiatives and action items
that could be accomplished more efficiently on a regional level. In its, role as a regional planning agency,
MWDOC will act as lead on water related hazard mitigation projects that are regional in nature, such as
projects including projects that cross several jurisdictional boundaries and work planned on behalf of
MET. OCSD and SOCWA will take the lead on wastewater related hazard mitigation projects that are
regional in nature and within their individual service areas.
The Risk Assessment (Section 4) indicates that each participating jurisdiction is susceptible to a variety of
potentially serious hazards in the region. The approach to emergency planning in California has been
comprehensive iWits planning for and preparedness to respond to all hazards utilizing the Standardized
Emergency Management System (SEMS) and a coordinated Incident Command System. A program
managed by MWDOC, the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC), acts
• as coordination point (Area Command) to support an effective emergency response to major' disasters by
the thirty' four Orange County water and wastewater utilities. WEROC provides services that promote
planning and preparedness activities for both the utilities, as well as its own Emergency Operations
Center (EOC) staff: WEROC also helps maintain two turn -key EOCs. WEROC receives guidance from a
steering committee, which includes representatives from Orange County water utilities, MET, the County
of Orange and the California Department of Health Service's Office of Drinking Water. WEROC and it
steering committee help ensure water and wastewater utilities remain current with state and national
emergency response procedures and plans for potential disasters. .
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that in addition to having emergency response and
emergency preparedness documents, regions should develop and maintain a document outlining measures
that can be implemented before a hazard event occurs that would help minimise the damage to life and
property. MWDOC has accepted the role of coordinating the development the Plan as a multi-
jurisdictional plan
All hazard mitigation planning effotts.within the region are the responsibility of the jurisdictions. The
capabilities of the jurisdictions to perform hazard mitigation planning are detailed in the annex for each
jurisdiction, starting with Buena Park in Section 5.6.
5.2.1 Regional Fiscal Resources
One of MWDOC's primary roles in coordinating the development of the Plan is to identify and obtain
grant funding for preparing and implementing the Plan. This is consistent with WEROC's role, as a
• program managed by MWDOC, for hazard mitigation and preparedness. MWDOC applied for and
5 -3
SFCTIONFIVE RiskAssesstnen[
received a grant from FEMA for the development and implementation of the Multi- Jurisdictional PROP.
WEROC will continue to provide guidance to the PV✓U with hazard mitigation project grant applications
and their implementation Additional fiscal capabilities of the . jurisdictions to implement a hazard
mitigation project are detailed in their individual write -ups.
52.2 Joint Facilities and MET Loss Calculations
The following Tables 5.2.3 -1 and 5.2.3 -2 present. the Joint Facilities and MET loss calculations
determined via the GIS .loss analysis. These are defined as follows:
Joint Facilities are defined as those regional facilities owned by one or more local agencies,
including situations in. which there is partial ownership by.MET. These facilities are generally
pipelines that were constructed under a Joint Powers Authority with investments made by several
agencies. This also includes the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 and the South County Pipeline,
which include both local ownership and ownership by MET. The El Toro R-6 Reservoir is
considered a Joint Facility since it serves ETWD, SMWD and MNWD.
MET Facilities are defined as those facilities owned 1000/9 by MET, which treat water . in Orange
County or convey water in Orange County. The facilities include the Diemer Treatment Plant,
the Lower Feeder, Allen McColloch Pipeline, the Orange County Reservoir, MET power plants
and the South County Pump Station
The Regional Loss calculations do not include the residential, business or.landscape costs of short term •
emergency or longer term drought shortages as outlined by MWDOC in Section 4. Therefore} the values
noted may be understated. We have left the detailed calculation and application of these additional loss.
values up to each agency to work out to determine their priority needs and mitigation actions.
5.3 Regional Goals and Objectives for Hazard Mitigation Planning for Water
The regional goals and objectives for hazard mitigation planning for water in Orange County can be
broken into the following areas:
1. Evaluation of Existing Water System Vulnerability
2. Emergency Operations and Response Planning
3. Build New Storage, Regional Interconnections, and Local Resources to better respond to
emergency situations
4. Monitor and Maintain Water Quality
5. Monitor and Maintain Water System Security
Each of these is outlined in more detail below.
1. Evaluation of Existing Water System Vulnerability — Involves evaluations to determine the
areas of risk to the continuation of delivery of water in the event of a disaster situation, evaluation
o«mscaossoc
54
• SECTIONFIVE BiskASSOSSU BI
•
of methods to facilitate recovery or to provide alternate delivery systems during and following a
disaster
a. Work with those responsible for importing our water into the region to evaluate the
reliability and recovery time of the systems
i. MET - Colorado River Water
ii. DWR — Levee and State Water Project reliability
ui. MET —Regional System Reliability within Orange County
b. Evaluate the reliability and flexibility of the regional and local water delivery systems
within Orange County.
i. Work with MET on reliability improvements to the Diemer Filtration Plant
u. Work with MET on assuring timely response efforts for pipeline outages
c. Identify vulnerable locations for pipeline outages and develop systems to protect those
areas, if feasible, or develop systems to allow delivery of water to customers via
alternative systems.
2. Emergency Operations and Response Planning— Involves planning exercises and keeping the
Emergency Operations systems in a state of readiness to proceed in the event of a disaster
a. Maintain and exercise the emergency preparedness plan
I. Update plans
u. Maintain EOC Staffing
A. Staff training
B. Cross training
HL Conduct test exercises .
A. WEROC only .
B: Involve other agencies
iv. Improve the efficiency within the Emergency Operations Centers
b. Improve the emergency response system
i. Identify staging areas
H. Coordinate Red Cross Response for bottled watr
c. Improve on the coordination and operational flexibility to reroute water supplies.
i. Improve knowledge, understanding and ability to move, water through emergency
interconnections.
d. Keep current on earthquake and other hazards.
i. Identify hazard areas
H. Update plan as new information becomes available
iii. Plug back into goal #1 above.
Ie�
o... flB{ut-0640G '5 -5
SECTIONME Risk Assessivem •
3. Build New Storage, Regional Interconnections, and Local Resources — Involves construction
or implementation of systems to improve emergency response or alternative systems of delivery
a. Support MET proceeding with reliability improvements to the Diemer Filtration Plant
b. Support MET on assuring response efforts for pipeline failures
c. Improve the ability to transfer water from the OCWD service area to areas of need
L Phase 1 Emergency Service Program
ii. Phase 2 Regional Wellfield and Pump into the EOCF #2
d. Develop the ability to control irrigation on a regional basis to help reduce emergency
water needs
i. Develop protocol for Smart Irrigation Controllers within the Public Domain
e. Develop additional local resources to improve system reliability
f Build new regional storage to help serve emergency needs and system reliability.
g. Build new regional interconnections to serve emergency needs
L Connect MET's Second Lower Feeder to the East Orange County Feeder No. 2
iL Connect the IRWD system to the Joint Regional Transmission Main
Hi. Connect the IRWD system to the Allen McColloch Pipeline and the South •
County Pump Station
b. Strengthen portions of the systems deemed to be vulnerable
i. Develop systems to delivery water when other critical systems suffer outages
4. Monitor and Maintain Water Quality — Involves monitoring of water quality constituents to
ensure safe drinking water supplies
a. Monitor quality and develop an alert system to man - induced water contamination
b. Monitor and -protect against groundwater contamination
c. Provide clean -up response when necessary
5. Monitor and Maintain Water System Security — Involves the use of deterrent or early warning
systems to ensure the integrity of the water systems
a. Deter access to key facilities
i. Fencing
ii. Cameras
b. Look into early warning system for water quality alerts to contaminants that might have
been intentionally introduced into the system.
c. Maintain GIS mapping system of assets and hazards and delivery systems. •
0a - onroaacsoc 5 =6
• SECTIONME RISkAssessmehl
5.4 Regional Goals and Objectives for Hazard Mitigation Planning for Wastewater
Orange County Sanitation District and the South Orange County Wastewater Authority are the regional
wastewater entities for north and south Orange County, respectively. OCSD and SOCWA have the
regional facilities, the responsibility and the resources to assist its members with respect to hazard
mitigation and response to emergency situations. Following are five major goals for hazard mitigation
planning purposes by the regional wastewater entities. The five goals are followed up with detailed
objectives and actions:
1. Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters
2. Minimize disruption of service due to hazard4nduced outages
3. Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills and potential contamination of potable supplies
4. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to esasting assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human - caused hazards
5. Promote public understanding, support and demand for.hazard mitigation.
• The objectives and actions under each of the five goals are listed below:
•
1. Minimize damages to facilities /infrastructure due to natural disasters
a. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the
effects of natural disasters.
i. Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations.
ii. Keep Emergency Operations Plan up- to-date
iii. Secure above -ground assets in all buildings, water reclamation plants, lift
stations, pipelines and bridge crossings.
iv. Protect assets from a major earthquake event.
v. Perform a seismic study analysis for all structures and facilities.
vi. Update standard specifications to comply with latest UBC seismic design codes
for structures and pipelines.
vii. Conduct routine site inspections of structures and facilities and follow -up on any
reported structural deficiencies or mitigation measures.
b. Reduce the High Fire Threat to facilities/infrastructure.
i. Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and
losses due to structural fire/wildfire.
uoa.�mmwoa-0aso� 5 -7
SECTIONFIW Oft Assessment •
H. Create a fire management plan outlining various impacted facilities and
vulnerabilities.
iii. Share all infi structures/building information with local, county, and state fire
agencies.
iv. Adopt a policy.for design of non - combustible facilities to reduce the threat and
impact of structure fires.
v. Provide redundant underground communication systems for critical facilities to
insure reliability of operating systems.
vi. Provide routine maintenance around facilities to avoid the chance of fire threat
and reducing the fuel source.
c. Evaluate impacts to facilities from earthquake, tsunami, winter storm and Prado Dam
failure (OCSD only for Prado Dam)
2. Minimize disruption of service due to hazard - induced outages
a. Provide backup system for critical facilities
L Build redundancy into the wastewater collection, treatment, disposal and non-
potable distribution system to mitigate major structural defects. •
ii. Follow the Asset Management Plan for replacement and refurbishment of .
facilities
iii. Protect and reinforce facilities within flood plain areas, rivers and creeks or
relocate facilities out of harms way.
iv. Install joindess pipelines in all creek crossings and slope easements.
b. Take the appropriate steps to respond to any emergency that could affect OCSD
operations and the community.
i. Keep Integrated Emergency Response Plan up-to -date
U. Update system maps to reflect current conditions
iii. Maintain st and -by crews, equipment and resources needed for emergency repair
iv. Develop procedures with the OCFA and local Hazmat Teams for hazardous
waste clean up and disposal operations.
v. Develop procedures for mobilizing District personnel and pre- positioning
resources and equipment.
vi. Identify the process and develop procedures for checking critical wastewater
facilities and equipment, including testing systems.
vii. Identify locations and install sensors/ alarms for harmful contaminants entering
the treatment system
•
• SECTIONME Risk Assessme0t
3. Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills.and potential contamination to potable supplies
a. Protect potable water from contamination
i. Strictly enforce standard separation between water and wastewater infrastructure
ii. Improve security at key facilities and install surveillance equipment
iii. Maintain operations daily /weekly site visit monitoring program to each facility
iv. Upgrade SCADA system to existing sites as needed
v. Protect facilities within flood plain areas
vi. Standardize and upgrade older lift station electrical and instrumentation systems
vii. Install permanent emergency power at all critical infrastructure sites.
4. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human- caused hazards
a. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to 'human caused
hazards
is Continue and expand .cooperation with all, outside agencies regarding human
caused hazards.
H. Continue and expand education for administrative and field personnel on possible
human caused hazards.
Hie Survey and.improve site fencing and other forms of hardening deterrence to
facilities including the use of camera and wireless communications
iv. Continue daily site checks at critical locations
V. Improve response time to alarm and emergency events
vi Modify SCADA system, when feasible, to took for additional parameters of
operation that may indicate problem areas
b. Increase the knowledge of employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance
handling procedures and terrorism awareness.
i. Continue and expand safety training for all district personnel who may come in
contact with said materials
ii. Conduct additional workshops for awareness of hazardous materials incidents for
all employees
iii. Examine opportunities for on -line water quality sensing relative to potential:
human induced contamination, and implement if feasible
iv. Public education on disposal of hazardous materials.
o� dx, aoa wvsoc 5 -9
SEC IONFIVE
6iskASSUSM6011 •
S. Promote public and corporate understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation.
a. Educate the public regarding natural and man -made hazards, and opportunities for
mitigation actions to protect local residents and businesses.
b. Prepare an emergency response preparedness brochure for the local community
identifying all types of natural hazards.
c. Promote a partnership between the local, county, state governments to identify, prioritize,
and implement mitigation actions.
d. Promote emergency response planning, business 'continuity planning and hazard
. mitigation in the business community.
e.. Make the media aware of mitigation activities and request their support in helping to
educate the general public.
f. Develop full cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused hazards.
5.5 Implementation Through Existing Programs
MWDOC, OCSD and SOCWA, along with each PWU will update their respective General Plans and •
Emergency Response Plans with changes that affect both'the specific jurisdictions as well as changes that
affect the overall, multi- jurisdictional planning area.
•
. oe�.�mn,aoaoasoc 5 -10
E
SECTIOHFIVE
Table 5:3:3.1 Joint Regianol Facilities Lost Estimation Tattle for Water
RlskAssessmene
® •
NmN pa
Sena.
W6T
RFS
WfP
p5
PR$
Elf
SC
ADM
LS'
==
WWTP•
WWTP•
Tstsl Lori
ep <ament ar
•*
17A
]0.0
10.0
2.0
SOCNA
OCSD
L6 -0060
PWL
WWL
Value Ill 7M
03'
0,5
250.0
7510.
1 12.0
1 12.0
70.0
250.0
10.0
Ix
0.5
Earthquake
Number.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
Exposure
0
0
0.0
A
0
0
0
0
0
55.0
0.0
$
R -
g
S -
S -
S -.
$ -
S -
S
$
Number
0
0
0
0
'2
O
Is
0
'0
-
E 55.0
$. -
$ 55.0
Hg
Exposure
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
88.3
0.0
SM
$ -
E
§
$ 1.2.
S. -
-
'S _
$ -
g. -
$ -
S
$
Nimiber.
Numbe�e
D
o
o
a
0
0
S -
§
$ 68.3
S. -
S 69S
Extreme
His
0
0
0
0
a
o
0-
' a
o
0.0
0.0
Head
M
Number
E -1$
0'
-.
0
S .15
0
S _
$.. _-
S.
S' -
S _
$ -
S
$ -
S -
S -
S -.
$ -'
$ -
§
E
700
ExposOm
0
0
0
foK
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
9.6
M
Number
S _
0
S
0
S _
0
S -
::::0:
S.
$
$. _.
S
g
S:
$ _
3
$ 4.8:E
4.6
_ 500.
Faprture
0'
2
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
156
00
M
S -'S
-.
-E -
§
$ -.
S
.S 12
-
$ -
$ -
S -
'$ '. -
S -.5
-
$,
S
S
-.3
Lantlallda
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
..
-
-
S'.. -
$ 15.8
•.
E. 169
Exposure
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.9
0.0
L10u11Pelioe
M
Number
S -
0
S _$
0
0
S
0
g
0
5 _$
_
S
g
$
S _
S
S
$ -
S 11.9
S -
$ 11.9
Madera
Expwum
0
0
0
0-
0
0.
, 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.3
0.0
Number
0
0
0
0
$
'
S -.
$
-0-0
S
g '_
g§
_ _
'$
S r
i
S
S
S 18,7E
-
S8.3
Hi7
Exposure
0
0
2
0
0
0.
0
'0
. 0
0
0
01
14.6
0.0
ISPA
S -IS
-
E, •
$
S
S -1$
1.2
S •
S -.
S •
S _
$
$
S _
S. -
$
S
$
Very Xg
Number
0
0
0
0
D
0
0-
0
0
'0
'0
-
. •.
_
-
S 14.8
8 -
$ 16.0
Evpnsum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8
0.0
M
$
S -
$ -
S
$ -
S -
$ ..
$ _
$
'S. -
$
$
Wlldlllal§WCture Fire
Number
0
0
D
0
0
0-
0
0
0
-0-0
_
S -
E 1.8
E -
$ 1:8
Lou
Exposure
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
22.6
0.0
$M
$ -
$ •
$ -
$ _
S'
E
S
$ _
y
S _.
$ -
$
$
$ _
§ _
g.
E
S
$-
Number
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
-
22.8
$
S 22.6
Hgh
Expwum
-
-
0.
0
0,
0
0
0
_
0
0
78
0.0
S. _.
S -
S -
$ -
S _
3 -is
.13
. -
S
$ -
$
S
S
S
S '
$
'
Number
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
-
7.6
§ -
S 7:8'
Extreme
Exposure
0
O
0
0
0.
0
0.1
0.0
M
E
S
S -
$ -
$
$ ..
y ._
S -Is
.13
_
S.
S -
.S
$. 0.1
$ -
S 0.1
Grand Total S 224.3"
Loss Waste asset replacement value In Rath Same Value shown Is found ati count of assets a hazards. Ne particular hazard times 1 •end unlFasset value.
[21 Grand Tatallsae. value shown may Include the �sameesse4 counted mulllpla times for tllearen2 hazards.
I
I
SECTIOHFIVE
Table 5.2.3-2 IM Loss Estmlation Table for Orange County Facilities
Risk Assessment
Heard Type
ep aeemeM ae
Mama
.+
WST
i1.0
RES
30.0
'WTP
10.0
PS
2.0
PRS
02
SIT'
0.3
SC _
0.5
ADM
]A.
'LS
0.4
PhYSp.
'5.0
WELL
pIEMER
2504.
OCAMPE
354
PRS•MET
- 12.0
PP
t2.0
WWTP'
SOCWA
304'
WWTP•
OCSD
250.0'
LCE
10:0
PWL
14
WWL
0.5
Tatel Lose
Valuepl SM
EeMquske
Number
0
0
0
1
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
'- 0
0
0
48.3
0!0
Moderate
ExPowre
0
1
SM
S -
5 -
S _
$ 2.0
3
$ -
S -
S -.
'S -
$ -
$ -
$
S -
$ -
$
S
$
Number
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35.0
-
•:
-
S 46.3
$ -
$ 83.3
.Hgh
Exfmsum
0
r.-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43.1
0.0
S
E
$ -
S
$
S
S _
$
$
$ -Is
-
..g
$ -
'$ '
S "
S -
$
S -
S 43.1
S.
3
Number
0
7
0
0
1)
0
0"
0
0
0
7
0
0
3
-
43.1
Edrame
Expo]are
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
$M
$ _
S 30.0
S
$ -
$ -
S _
g.. -
S _
$ -.
g -
$
$.. 250.0
.$
S -
$36.0
E'
S
S -
$
S
flood
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
-
S 316.0
Exposure
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0.0
7.2
:'00'
$ _.
S -
$ _
$ -
S. -
S
$ _
S _
S .
'$. - -
S
S -
$. ..
$. _
g .
g .
$ "
$ 3.6
S 3.8
Number
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
- 0
0
y
Expoauro
06.3
0.0
M
'$ -1$
-
$ -
S -
$ -.
$'
$ -
$ _
S
$ -
$
$
$ -.
'S -.
S. -.
S -
$ -
$ -
5 38.3.
$ -
E' 38.3
Landslide
Number
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
..
EI{p11aro
0
0
0
11;9
-0.0
$
S _
S.
S _
S -
$ -IS
_
$ __
$ -
$ _
+$ .
S -
5 _
S _
S .
$24.0.
S -
$
S -
S 11.9
3 -
$ 359
UquBecUan .
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
Moderate
Fapoeure
21.3
0:0
(SMI
E -
5
$ -
5
S _
g
$ -
S _
S _ .,
g
g
$ _
$. -
g -
$
g.
g
S -
5. 21.3
$
E. 27.3
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
0
u
0
High
Expbsum
_.
0
10.8
0.0
-
ISM ]
It -
$
$ _
S •
S . -
S -
-0-0-0-0
$ -
:$ .
S -
S -
$ ..
$ _ _
$ _
S
$ _
S..
$ -
$ -
4 10.8
$ -.
$ 909
Very Hgh
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ekpotum
0
0
0
0.4
0.0
3
S -
$ -
5
S
$ "
$ -
S _
$ "'
$ -
$ "
S ..
$ _.
S. -
S -
$ -
I $ -.
It -
S -
It 0.4
$ -
S� 0.4
WIIdIBdBtrvdure.Fire
Nuxnbm
01
0
1
1
D
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
In
Fapesuro
0
0
0
15:8
0.0
S
$
S. --
$10.0
It 2.0
S -
S -
$ _
S -.
9 -
S -.
S
'$ -
S -
S
S
5
$
Number
0
0
0-
'0
0
1 01
0
---or-0
-
-.
- -
-
$ -
S 15.8
$ -
$ 27.8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9,q
0.0
ft
Exposure
,.
M
S
E _
g '-
$ -
g _
IS _
g ._
S -
;S ...
'$ -
S_ .-
$ -
E
S -
f12.0
$.
S
$ -
E BA
$ "
$ 21.4
_
Number
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
'-0
0
0
0
0
-0-0
Esbeme
Exposure
0.3
0.0
ISM)
$ -
S -.
$
$ -
$ -
S
$ _
g
$ _
$ -
$ -
$ -
S- -
S
$
g -
$' -
S -.
S 0.3
$ -
S 0.3
[7] Lass value Is asset replacement value In 2006 dollars. Value shown Is found as count of assets at risk from the particular hazard times hlqhend unitassat value.
12] Grand Total Lose value shown may Include the same assets Counted multiple times for different hazards.
RS s:�.,omc«weuue 5.12
Grand Total 1 $- 600.1
11
E
u
• SECTIONME BUENA PARK RiSkASSES lnent
5.6 BUENA PARK— OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND ACTIONS
The City of Buena Park (Buena Park) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including
detailed critical facility information and localized potential Hazard exp0sure110SS estimates to help identify
the top hazards threatening theirjurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
Buena Park Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.6.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment ( Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in .place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Buena Park's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified. mitigation
action items.
5.6:2 ,Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of Buena Park are shown in Table 542.1; .;which presents the
• existing ordinances.and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Buena Park Examples of
legal andlot regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate.
disclosure plans.
Table 5.6.2 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
•
Regulatory Tools
Local Authority
State
Authority
Other Level
Jurisdiction Authority
Comments
(6rdinances, codes, plans)
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)'
(Yes /No)
Buena Pads (Building
Dept)
Building code
Yes
Yes
Yes
OCFA (Fire).
AQMD (Air Quality)
R. Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
No
Buena Pads
(Planning)
C. Subdivision ordnance or "Aallons
Yes
No
No
Buena Park
(Building)
ooa.oem,aoaas�sria 5 -13
SEDVIUAFIVE BUENA PARK RisgASsessMent •
Table 5.6.2- 1(continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Regulatory Tools
(ordinances, codes, plans)
Local Authority
(YesINO)
State
Authority
Other Level
Jurisdiction Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
D. Special purpose ordinances
County Of Orange
(floodoaln management, storm wateRegional
management, hillside or steep slope
Yes
Yes
Yes
Wot�
ordinances, wildfae ordinances,
(RWQCB) Control
hazard setback requirements)
board
Buena Park
E. Growth management kKdinances
(� plan)
(also caled'smart grovM' or ar&
Yes
Yes
No
County of Orange
sprawl programs)
LAFCO
Buena Park
(Engineering I
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pinning)
OCFA (Fire)
Buena Park (Peones)
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
No
No
Buena Park (Master
Plan)
H. A capita ®npmvements plan
Yes
No
No
Buena Park (CIP
Plan) .,
I. An economic development plan
Yes
No
No
Buena Park (Master.
Plan)
SEMS
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
NIMS
WEROC
Buena Park (EOC)
K A posWisaster recovery plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
NIMS.
Buena Park
L A post - disaster recovery ordinance
Yes
Yes
Yes
County of Orange
State of California
M Real estate dsdosure
No
Yes
No
State Real Estate
requirements
Board
N. CA DHS (Searcy Issues)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Vulnerability
Assessment
State Health
0. Title 22 Potable Water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Servicas
AirQualcyy /AQMD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Emergency
EPA! VA & ERP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Generators
Reporting
5.6.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Buena Park and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Buena
Park, as shown in Table 5.6.3 -1, provides an identification of the staff personnel, and department
LMM o � ire. m4MDO 5 -14
u
• SECT10NME BUENA PARK Risk ASSM016 i
0
•
resources available to implement, the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific
resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with
knowledge of land. development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices.related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
mannrsde hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with
hazards in the community.
Table 5.6.3 -1,
Administrative and. Technical Capacity
StafflPersonnetResources.
Yes/No
DeparlmentlAgency and Position
A. Planner(s) or engineers) with knowledge of
Buena Park / Planners & Engineers
land development'and land management
Yes
CRY Miss (Outside Private Consultants)
Practices
B. Errgtneer(s) or professionals) trained in
City Coordinates With Outside Consiltards
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
City Buffing Dept (Cfty Inspectors)
and/or infrasWclure
Engineering Dept (City Engineer & Const. Inspectors)
C. Planners or Engineers) with an understandng.
Yes
Cfty Coordinates with Outside Consultants
of natural andMr human- caused hazards .
D. Floodplain manager.
Yes.
County Of Orange
E: Surveyors
Yes
City Coordinates WdhOutsideConsultants
F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the
Yes
City Staff
County of Orange
community's w9nerablity to hazards
WEROC /Staff .
City Personnel / Engineering Tear.
G. Personnel sidled in GIS andfor HAZUS
Yes
Cfty Coordinates Wdh Outside Consultants
H. Scientists familiarwlth the hazards of the
Yes
City Coordinates With Cal State Fullerton
community
I. Emergency manager
Yes
City Engineer / EOC
City Manager/ EOC Manager
J. Grantwrlers
Yes
Engineering Dept .I Assoc. Engineer
K Lab Speciarmt & Lab Staff
No
OCWD
Clinical Lab. of San Bernardino
O�wfl%-OcAU6 DG 5 -15
SECTIONFIVE
5.6.4. Fiscal Capability
BUENA PARK
Risk Assessment
Table 5 ;6.41 slaws specific financial and budgetary tools available to Buena Park such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developer for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
Table 5.6.4 -1
Fiscal Capability
5 -16
•
•
n
�J
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/HolDon't Know)
A.
Commuru tf Development Block Grants .(CDBG)
Yes
B.
Capital improvements Wiecltund'mg
Yes
C.
Augarityto levy tw= for specific purposes
Yes
D.
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
E.
Impact fees forhomebuyers or developers for new
developmentsitwmes
Yes
F.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes .
G.
incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes
H.
Incur debt through prrtate adivdy bands
Unknown
I.
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
Yes
5 -16
•
•
n
�J
r1
�J
•
SECTIONFIVE BUENA PARK Risk AssessMent
5.6.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment .
Tattle 5.6.5 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
5.6.5.1 City of Buena Park Goals
Listed below are Buena Park's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and.related potential actions.
For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal.
Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/eaposore estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in finther development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met 4ith consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Buena Park City Council for their
approval
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives arid.
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard - related goals;. objectives and actions as prepared by Buena Park's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
oowne m so xm sos 5-17
Programs,
Effect on Loss Reduction'
Agency Name
Plans,
Policies,
Point of Contact
(MissionfFunction 1
Regulations,
Name, Address,
Comments
phone, EmaB
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Funding, or
Practices
B.P. /City Ha0
1.Buldin De
g
6650 Beach Blvd.
X
Buena Pack, CA 90622
71456233636
A. City of Buena Park
(OWner)
2.Pianning Dept.
714 - 562.3620
X
3.Engineedng
714 - 562.3670
X
Dept
4.Manager
714 - 5623550
X
1.Dmsion Chief
Hunter 714527-
X
B. OCFA /Fire
0537
2.Ballon Chief
714 — 527 5509
X
5.6.5.1 City of Buena Park Goals
Listed below are Buena Park's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and.related potential actions.
For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal.
Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/eaposore estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in finther development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met 4ith consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Buena Park City Council for their
approval
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives arid.
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard - related goals;. objectives and actions as prepared by Buena Park's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
oowne m so xm sos 5-17
SECTIONFM BUENA PARK HIM ASSet ment
For the City Buena Park, following are five major potential goals for hazard mitigation planning
purposes. The five goals are followed up with detailed objectives and actions:
1. Minimize damages to facilitiesfinfrastructure due to natural disasters
2. Minimize disruption of service due to hazard induced outages.
3. Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills
4. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards
5.. Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation.
The objectives and actions under each of the six goals are listed below:
.1. Minimize damages to facilities /infrastructure due to natural disasters
a. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the
effects of natural disasters.
L Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations.
ii. Keep Emergency Operations Plan up-to -date
•
iii. Install seismic valves at critical reservoir sites
iv. Loop water sources where possible
v. Intertid supply sources where possible
vi. Construct interties with neighboring water purveyors
vu. Secure above ground assets in all buildings, booster stations, reservoirs, pressure
reducing stations, emergency interties, water systems, water reclamation plant,
lift-stations, pipelines and bridge crossings.
viiL Identify all major fuel pipelines, rail transportation corridors, manufacturing
facilities, and their relative vulnerability relative to hazardous material releases.
b. Protect the public water supply from contamination caused by backflow or back -
siphonage in the event of an earthquake
L Continued with backflow prevention program
ii. Monitor low - pressure areas in the water system
iii. Upgrade all potential hazardous potable water services with the required
backflow,prevention device to prevent backpressure or back- siphonage that could
contaminate the public water supply.
iv. Require all. single check fire system in the District to be upgraded to a Double -
Check Detector Assembly. Single -check fire system cannot be tested to
•
un o�.MIWIDAa Soc 5 -18
• SECTIONFIVE 13UENA PARK B10Assessment
determine if they are working properly. The Double -Check Detector Assembly
can be tested and requires an,annual test to determine if it is functioning properly.
The water quality in fire systems has been proven not safe for human
consumption. Random tests on fire system water quality exceeded maximum
contaminant levels for potable water including iron, lead, cadmium, manganese,
and total Coliform
c. Protect potable water from contamination
L Strictly enforce standard separation between water infrastructure and other
utilities
I Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations
iii. Improve security at certain facilities and install surveillance equipment
iv. Maintain operations daily /weekly site visit monitoring program to each facility
v. Install and maintain equipment at essential facilities
vi. Upgrade SCADA system to existing sites as needed
vii. Install emergency collection structures at each tank site to capture released water
viii. Keep Emergency Operations Plan up-to -date
d. Protect assets from a major Earthquake event
i. Perform a seismic study analysis for all structures and facilities.
-- -- — - - Update the standard, specification to comply with latest UBC .seismic design
codes for strucaves,and pipelines.
iii. Conduct routine site inspections of structures, and facilities and follow -up on
structural deficiencies.
iv. Adopt Structural Design Criteria which will resist the most severe earthquake
. anticipated.
e. Reduce the High Fire 11reat to the District facilities/infrastructum
i. Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and
losses due to structural fire/wildfire.
u. Create a fire management plan outlining various impacted facilities and
vulnerabilities.
iiL Share all inh astructures/building information with local, county, and state fire
agencies.
iv. Adopt a policy for design of non - combustible facilities to reduce the threat and
impact of Wildfire on structures. .
v. Provide redundant underground communication systems for critical facilities to
insure reliability of operating systems.
5 -19
SECTIONFWE BUENA PARK BiskAssessment •
vi. Provide routine maintenance around facilities to avoid the chance of fire threat
and reducing the fuel source.
. _ 2. Minimize disruption of service due to hazard induced outages
a. Provide backup system for critical facilities
i. Build redundancy into the water supply source to mitigate major structural
defects to main transmission water pipelines.
H. Loop water sources where possible
ili. Intertie supply sources where possible
iv. Construct interties with neighboring water purveyors
v. Provide containment structure for additional response time
vi. Replace existing force mains if necessary
vii. Protect facilities within flood plain areas
viii. Place protective measures in rivers and creeks or relocate facilities out of harms
way
ix. Install jointless pipelines in all creek ixossings
Y- Improve structural characteristics of reservoirs and pump stations; consider •
flexible connections at reservoirs for seismic activity
A Install isolation valves at all locations when feasible
A. Design facilities with flexible connections
xiii. Install camera and wireless communication at all facilities
xiv. Continuing with daily site check
b. Improve response time
L Keep Emergency Response Plans up-to-date
ii. Update system maps to reflect current conditions
iii. Maintain stand -by crew for emergency repair '
3. Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills
a. , Provide emergency storage structure for all sewage lift facilities
b. Protect facilities within flood plain areas
c. Construct an emergency storage structure (where needed) at sewage lift stations
d. Standardize and upgrade older lift station electrical and instrumentation systems
e. Install permanent emergency power at all older lift stations
f. Place protective measures in rivers and creeks •
o.m�woaasoo 5 -20
• SECTIONFtW BUENA PARK Risk Assessment
g. Install jointless pipelines in all creek crossings and slope easements
4. Reduce potential loss and injury. to human life and to eristing assets; facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards
a. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human doused
hazards
i. Continue and expand cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human
caused hazards.
ii. Continue and expand education for administrative and field personnel on possible
human caused hazards.
iii. Survey and improve site fencing and other forms of hardening facility deterrence
iv. Improve response time to alarm and emergency events
V. Modify SCADA systen when feasible, to look for additional parameters of
operation that may indicate problem areas
b. Increase the knowledge of employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance
handling procedures and terrorism awareness.
• L Continue 'and expand safety training for all personnel who may come in contact
with said materials
H. Conduct additional workshops for awareness of hazardous materials incidents for
all employees
iii. Examine opportunities for on -line water quality sensing relative to potential
human induced contamination, and implement if feasible
5. Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation.
a. Educate the public regarding natural and man -trade hazards and opportunities for
mitigation actions to protect local residents and businesses.
b. Prepare an emergency .response preparedness brochure for the local community
identifying all types of natural hazards.
c. Promote a partnership between the local, county, state governments to identify, prioritize,
and implement mitigation actions.
d. Promote hazard mitigation in the business community.
e. Use the public media to cover mitigation activities.
t: Publish newsletters for the :public 'and business leaders with information regarding
mitigation of natural and man -[Wade hazards.
• g. Develop full cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused hazards.
mn. aa+eowmvsoc 5 -21
SECTIONFIVE BUENA PARK RISkASseSsmailt
Table 5AW Bum Park Loss Estimation Table
mnl. a
.
Ihnia
WIT
RES .
WfP
PS
PRS Err
SC
ADM
LS'
WFfiP.
[WELL
OIEMER .
OP38PS
PR841Ef PP
WYI1Y-
SOCWA
viem.
OCSD
L"CSD
FWL
WWL
ToulLen
Value [lisp
mamas u
W
Mode
+
umbel
13.0
1
904
0
10.0
0
Lo
U 02 -
13 0
0.f
4
S4.
2
OA
0
SA
0
AA
7
,260.0
0
35e
-0
12.0 " 12.0
0
30.0
0
-:290A
0
MIN!,
139.7
0.0
Expnuro
S 13A
S :-
S -
9 2A
S 2p
S. '•
S 2A
5 8.0.
S -
S -
$24.6
S -
S -
f +.
S -
S.
S -
S -
S 139.7
S
S 1902
Nb
0
'0
0.
0
0
0:
0
0':''
0
'0
0
0
-' 0
0
0
0
0
93.6
OA
Smuts
S
S -
S
S •.
9 -is
-.
S -
3 •
'S .. -
.6
f' �-
S -
..
9 . -
S . -
S -
f. -
f .
S' -
S 93S
.
S. -
i. 90.1
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
D
.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
Op
�n
S
S -
S
S
S-
S -
f •.
i -
S.
S -
S
S -
.S .
S -
S-
S
S -•
S -
S
i
Food
100•
50S
her
- 0
0
0
0
0
111
01
D
0"
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
2.
0
Eaponus
S
8
f-
f -
S.-
S•..-
S -'f
-
S
S -
S •
S -
"
i
5
S-
S
S
f -
S. 2.9
S -
S .,ZB
umber
0
0
0
0
1
31
2
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
19 .
2432
S -
S
S -.
S -
S. -
S. .;
S 1.8
S,6.0
S" -
S
$24,6
S -
S -
S -
IS -
S -
S
S 198.0
S .121A
S S32A
ndsms
0
0
0
0
C
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.0
mn
S -
9
Llqu9tetlon
.
160
Wry K9
MDIdbWetsn RN
Np
Eahena
arAU
1
0
0
1
5
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
- 44A
OA
S I"
S
S
$ 2,o
S 1.0
S.. -
S oA
S •
S -
S -
S 7,0
S
-
S, •
S
S
S -
S -
S.: 4,4.4
S
S 66.0
N6m6er
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-' 0
. 0
0
0
0
175.9
0.0
-
E3puun
•
S -
S -
9 -
S -
S '•
S 12
S 8,0
S -
S
f21A.
S
-
i -
S -
S
S -
9': -
S 175.9
S .-
S 2011
Nmaar
0
0
� 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
� 0�
0
� 0
0
0
0
0
0
Op
Op
Expuun
S -
E -
S
S
E -
-
S
S -
S -
5 --
S +
5:5.'•
-
S .-
3: -
S -
S
S .-
.
S
S' -
f -
S.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.6
Op
Eap6aun
9
$
.
JS
•.
S
S 6,5
941
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
01
01
111
111
0
0
.Op
0.0
E3pomn
S
S -S
S -
S'eS-S
S -SS
-
S.'•.S'.
-$
S� -S
Nmi00r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
.0
0
` 0
0
D
0
0.0
Op
E3pmun
S �
Ell Loss'vaWe ts uset n4taeenunitrilue to ZOOfl daltan. Value sh won is found as.eountof asset, of etch from the Dat00ularhazard times hbh.end unit asset value.
[21 Grand Total Loss value shown may Include the suns assets counted muWple times for dRHroM hazards.
URS o.:...,wvaemuo 5.22'
• SECTIONFIW ' EL TORO WD Risk Assessment
5.7 EL TORO — OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND ACTIONS
The El Toro Water District (ETWD) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed
critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposurelloss estimates to help identify the top
hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
ETWD's Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this. section.
5.7.1 Capability Assessment
The 'LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation .planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides ETWD's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5.7.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory.capabdities of ETWD are shown in Table 5.7.3-, 1, which presents the existing,
• ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of ETWD. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory .capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans.
5.7.3 Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.7.3 -1 .
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local state
o..ui e-wa soc 5 -23
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authorty
Authority
Jurisdiction
NAO)
(yeAo)
(Yestno)
ETWD, City of Lace Forest, qty
A. Bulding code
Yes
No
Yes
of Laguna Woods, City of Laguna
His, We(Also Veto, County
B. Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
No
Local Cies and County
C. Subdivision ordnance or regulations
NA
NA
NA
Local Cries and County • .
D. Spada[ purpose ordinances (ftoodplain
No
Yes
Yes
County, Local.Ci ies, OCFA,
man ement, done water man errant,
Army Corp of Erlglneers,
o..ui e-wa soc 5 -23
CTIONFIVE EL TORO WD Risk Assessment
5.7.4 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
The following is a summary of existing departments in ETWD and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of ETWD, as
shown in Table. 5.7.4 -1, provides an identification of the sta>3y personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation, section of the Plan. Specific resources
reviewed include: those involving technical personnel such as plannerstengineeas with knowledge of land
5 -24
•
•
. Local
state
Other Level
Jurisdiction
Regulatory Tads (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Authority
(YesR1o)
(YesMo)
(YestNo)
hillside or steep slope ordmanees, wildfire
RWQCB & State Fish & Game
ordnance% hazard setback requirements)
E Growth management ordinances (also
called 'smart growth" or ankprawt
No
No
Yes
Local g6es & County .
program)
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
Yes
Yes
OCFA, Local Cities, County,
DSOD, CRWQCB & DFG
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
No
No
ETWD Master Plan
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No
ETWDMasterPlan
I. An economic developrnent plan
Yes
No
Yes
Coordination with Cities
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
ETWD, SEMS, NIMS, EPA &
WEROC
K. A post-disaster recovery plan
Yes
No
Yes
ETWD &NIMS — Funding
L DAMS
Yes
Yes
Yes
DSOD & CRWQCB
M. VA & FRP
Yes
Yes
Yes
USEPA & OES
N. Title 17 & 22
No
Yes
Yes
CA-DHS & County Health Care
Agency
0. Wastewater
Yes
Yes
Yes
CRWQCB & County Health Care
Agency
P. Air Quality
No
Yes
Yes
SCAQMD
Q. Safety
No
Yes
Yes
Cal OSHA
R. Waste Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
Slate Water Resources Control
Board .
5.7.4 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
The following is a summary of existing departments in ETWD and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of ETWD, as
shown in Table. 5.7.4 -1, provides an identification of the sta>3y personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation, section of the Plan. Specific resources
reviewed include: those involving technical personnel such as plannerstengineeas with knowledge of land
5 -24
•
•
. SECTIONFIVE EL TORO WD Biskassessment
•
•
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community...
Table U41-1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
StafflPersonnel Resources
Yes/No
DepartmentlAgency and Position
• Planner(s) or engineers) with knowledge of
land development and land management '
No
District coordinates with outside consultants
practices
• Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
District coordinates with outside consultants &
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
in-house staff as directed by the Director of Operations
and/or infrastructure
and Engineering
District coordinates with outside consultants & In -house
• Planners or Engineers) Wth an understanding
Yes
staff as directed by the Director of Operations and
of natural ardor human-caused hazards
Engineering
• Roodplain manager
No
County of Orange — RDMD
• Surveyors
No
District coordinates with outside consultants
• Staff owith education or expertise to assess the
Yes
Forcurtent fac sties and potential Hazards specific to
communlys vulnerability to hazards
ETWDfacilities
• Personnel sWed in GIS and/or HAMS
No
District Coordinate's with outside consultants
• Scientists familiar wfgr the hazards of the
No.
District Coordinates with outside consultants
community
• Emergency Manager.
Yes
General Manager & Director of Operations
• Grant writers
No
District Coordinates with outside consultants
• Lab Staffl Specialist
Yes
WRP Labs, Senior Dab Tech, & Lab Tech
• Construction inspector
Yes .
Operations
ocean tw,oawsos 5 -25
SECTIONME
5.7.5 Fiscal Capability
EL TORO WD
Risk ASSeSSWdlit
Table 5.7.5-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to ETWD such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withhokling spending in.
hazard -prone areas.
Table 5.7.5.1
Fiscal Capability
oi��rciiaaio�soo 5 -26
0
•
•
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to' use
(Yes/No/Don't Know)
A.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
No
B.
Capitol improvements project funding
Part of Water Rate
C.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes (subject to voters approval),
D.
Fees forvratm sayer service (Rate Stricture)
Yes
E.
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for now
developmentshornes
Yes
F.
Incur debt through general obiga6on bonds
Yes (subject to voters apprbv*
G.
Inert debt thmugh special tax and revenue bonds
Yes (subject to voters approval).,
H.
Incur debt through private activity bonds
Yes
I.
Withhold spending, in hazard -prone areas
No
J.
Grants
Yes
oi��rciiaaio�soo 5 -26
0
•
•
0
•
i�
SECTIONFIVE EL TORO WD
5.7.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Table 5.7.6.1
Local Mitigation Capabllity Assessment
61sk Assessment
Agency Name
Programs, Plans, PoRdes,
Point of Contact Agency,
Effect on Loss Reduction
psaloWunctiou)
Regulations, Funding, or
Phone
Comments
Practices
support
Facilitate
Hinder
A Building Code
City of Lake Forest
B. Zoning Code
Bumug oemonerd
X
ETWO
C. Subdivision Ordinance
949461 -4W
A. Building Code
City of hfssion Viejo
S. Zoning Code
Buffing Department
X
C. Subdivision Ordinance
949 470-M
A. Building Code
My of Laguna Hills
S. Zoning Cade
Bugling Department
X
C. Subdivision Ordinance
949-707-2600...
A. Bugling Code
City of Laguna woods
B. Zoning Code
Sul"oepatment
X
C. Subdnision Ordinance
g4M39MW
A. Building Code
City of Also VI*
B. Zoning Code
Building Department
X
C. Subdansion Ordnance
949425-M
A. Building Code
County of orm. ga.
S. Zont Cade
X
C. subdivision ordmance
ETWD
A. Building Code
Ovector of OpMUM &
X
Engineering
SSM7 -7050
ETWD
QiSpecialPmpose
Local cities
X
ordinances
D-2 Special Purpose
County of Orange
X
Ordinances
714433.6000
D3 Special Purpose
Orange Canty Foe
WI MUM
W
y
X
7146
7146736000
04 SpecialPu"s
ArMCapsdEngineers
X
ordinances
916557-6100
D- Special Purpose
Department of Fish & Game
X .
ETWD
Ordinances
909-084-0459
ooa...0%oa�ce 5 -27
SECTIONFIVE EL TORO WD RiskAS5Bssm@Bt
Agency Name
Programs, Plane, Policies,
Point of Contact Agency,
Effect on Lass Reduction
(MissioniFunction)
Regulations, Funding, or
Phone
Comments
Practices
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
D-6 Special Purpose
Regional Water quality
Ordinances
Control Board - Region 8
X
951 - 7824130
D-7 Special Purpose
Regional water Quality
Ordinances
Control Board - Region9.
X
858467 -2952
EA Growth Management
Local Cities
X
Ordinances
E -2 Growth Management
County of Orange
X
Ordinances
714433MM
F -1 Site Plan Review
county of Omnge
X
74 O
Orange County fire
F -2 Site Plan Review
Authority
X
714-673 -M
F-3 Sit Plan Review
Local Cities
X
F4 Site Plan Review
Division of Safety Of Danis
X
916- 7993055
Regional Water quality
F5 Site Plan Review
Control Board -Region 8
X
951 - 7824130
Regional Water Quality
F-6 Site Plan Review
Control Board - Re" 9.
X
858467 -2952
F -7 Site Plan Review
Department Fish & Game
X
gof
ETWD
G-1 General Comprehensive
Directs of Operations &
X
Plan
Engineering
949-837-7050
ETWO
H -1 Capiital Improvements
Director of Operations &
X
Plan
Engineering
949.837 -7050
Ms D..,,aarv;o*wmco 5 -28
•
•
• SECTIONFIVE EL TORO WD BI$kASSesstfrent
U
•
Agency Name
Programs, Plans, Policies,
PolatolCordactAgency,
Effect on Loss Reduction
(MlssionfFunction)
Regulations, Funding, or
Phone
Comments
Practices
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
1-1 Economic Development
Local Gees
X
Plan
R Economic Development
ETWD General Manager or
Plan
CFO
X
949M7-7050
ETWD
J•1 Emergency Response
Director of Operations &
X
ETWD
Plan
Engineering
949-837 -7050
J -2 Emergency Response
SEMS
X
Plan
800452-7550
J3 Emergency Response
NIMS
X
Plan
301447 -120
Jd Emergency Response
WEROC
X
Plan
714- 593 -5010
J5 Emergency Response
USEPA
X
Plan
714.712 -2888
1-1 Post Disaster Plan
NIMS
X
301-447 -120
ETWD
K 2 Post Disaster Plan
Director of Operations &
X
Engineering
949-837 -7050
ETWD
No-1 DAMS
Director of Operations &
X
Engineering
94"V-7050
No-2 DAMS
O msim of Safety Of Dems
X
916.7993055
Regional Water Wily
No3 DAMS
Calyd Board- Region 8
X
951- 782 -4139 -
Regional Water Quality
No3DAMS
Control Board - Region 9.
X
858-067 -2952
D...mnsaa-oesoc 5 -29
SECTIVIFIVE EL TORO wo RiSRAS$essment •
Agency Name
Programs, Plans, Policies,
Point of Contact Agency,
Effect an loss Reduction
(MissionlFunoilon)
Regulations, Funding, or
Phone
Commems
Practices
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
0.1 VA & ERP
ETWD
�90perations &
x
949837 -7050
0.2 VA & ERP
USEPA
x
714-712 -2888
03 VA & FfiP
652
x
8 7550
Cardomia Dept of Heafth
P -1 Title 17 & 22
Services
x
7145584410
County of Orange Health
ETWO
P-2 Toile 17 & 22
Care Agarpy
x
714 - 4338000
EfWD
04 Wastewater
Director of Operations &
x
Enginmin9
949- 837.7050
County of Orange Health
0-2 Wastewater
Care Agency
x
714433MW
Regional Water 0uarry
03 Wastewater
Control Board— Regfoh8
x
951- 7824130
Regional Water 0uaW
04 Wastewater
Control Board - Region 9.
X
65&467 -2952
South Coast Air 0 wft
R -1 Air Ouardy
Management District
X
909396 -2800
S 4 Safety800.963-8424
X
s.2 Safety
OSHA
Fx
800321 -6742
ooa,aa-0ctsoc 5 -30
•
•
• SECTIONME M TORO wo Risk Assessment
5.7.6.1 ETWD Goals
Listed below are ETWD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the "LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. in addition, District representatives met with consultant staff
and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan Once developed, District staff presented them to the ETWD Board for approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. A specific meeting was held with the ETWD Community
Advisory Group to get their input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard
identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -
related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by ETWD's LPG in conjunction with the'Hazard
Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
• Implementation Strategy
•
The El Toro Water District Strategy for implementation of the following goals consists of the following
components:
B. Capital Replacement and Refurbishment Program (CRRP) — Capital projects or equipment
acquisitions will be included in the Districts current fiscal years CRRP or in the on -going five and
ten year plans.
C. Operations and Maintenance Budget — The ability to continue the critical O&M programs
designed to preserve and extend the useful life of the water and wastewater infrastructure is
maintained and accommodated in the annual O&M budget.
D. Alternative Funding Sources — Whenever possible the District will pursue alternative funding in
the form of grants or low interest loans in an effort to maximize the District's ability to protect,
preserve and enhance the infrastructure.
E. Staff will make use of outside consultant sources as appropriate to conceive, . develop and
implement projects
F. ETWD coordinates with neighboring and regional agencies to explore any cooperative regional
projects.
ow,soaassoc 5 -31
WTIONFIVE EL TORO WD
Goal•Nb. 1 Operations & Maintenance
Risk Assessmem
Design and implement an Operations and Maintenance Program that will preserve the integrity and
reliability of the facilities and infrastructure.
Objectives
Equipment Maintenance to Maintain Critical Equipment Reliability.
Actions
Continue aggressive Preventive.Mamtenance Program
Scheduled replacement of equipment that reaches the end of its useful service life
Collection System Maintenance to Prevent Sewer Overflows
Actions
Continue regular sewer pipeline cleaning program
Continue regular sewer pipeline CCTV inspection program
Continue Fats, Oils and Grease Control Program
Emergency Preparation •
Actions
Keep Emergency Response Plan up- to-date
Continue to maintain current emergency supplies at the Main Office and WRP sites
lnfiastructure Maintenance
Actions
Maintain regular operations site visits / monitoring program at each facility
Conduct routine site inspections of structures and facilities
Follow up to correct structural or other identified deficiencies
Provide routine maintenance around. facilities to avoid the chance of fire threat by
reducing the fuel source.
Water Quality
Actions
Continue operation and, enforcement of bacldlow prevention program
Strictly enforce standard separation between water infrastructure and wastewater nr
recycled water facilities
•
ow„smassac 5 -32
0
•
•
SEMONFIVE
Design Standards
Actions
EL TORO WD
Risk Assessment
Construct. new facilities to comply with structural design criteria which will mitigate
seismic structural impacts
Goal No. 2 Minimize damages to facilities / infrastructure due to natural disasters
Objectives
Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the effects of
natural disasters.
Actions
Conduct a system specific vulnerability assessment to identify potential projects to
mitigate the effects of natural disasters from an analysis of hazard exposure and facility
criticality
Enhance reliability: of District pumping facilities
Actions
Implement installation of upgraded Motor Control Center and Smart Motor Controllers at
Cherry Booster Station .
Implement. Shenandoah Booster, Station .Improvement Project to, upgrade the Motor
Control Center, install Smart Motor Controllers and relocate electrical equipment out of
the pump room.
Perform Asset Management Study to identify critical facilities replacement schedules
Protect assets from a major Earthquake event.
Actions
Perform :a seismic.,study analysis for all structures and facilities.
Improve Response to disaster related failures
Actions
Monitor distribution system pressures throughout the service area
Implement the proposed SCADA Distribution System Upgrade Project
Implement GIS System Project to help identify risks and goals relative to hazard
mitigation as it pertains to ETWD.infrastructure
oxuoeonw.oa. mDa 5 -33
SECTMNFIVE EL TORO WD Risk Assessment •
Implement expansion of ETWD Emergency Operations Center
Goal No. 3 Minimize disruption of service due to hazard induced outages
Objectives
Obtain additional sources of emergency water supply
Actions
Consider participation in South Orange County Reliability Projects
Consider construction of an inter - connection with Moulton Niguel Water District to
provide emergency supply the Ultra High Zone
Preserve or enhance emergency storage
Actions
Continue to maintain storage capacity at the R-6 Reservoir
Consider cost effective options to enhance storage as options evolve or present
themselves •
Diversify Source of Potable Water Import Supply
Actions
Consider participation in Baker Regional Treatment Facility project.
Maintain ability to effectively use existing capacity in Joint Regional Water Supply
System
Provide Backup systems for critical facilities .
Actions
Install stationary generator at P -3 Pump Station
Relocate Fuel Storage Tanks at WRP Above Ground
Implement Low Zone I Reconfiguration Project to provide connection from Gravity
Zone to Reduced High Zone
Goal No. 4 Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills
Objectives
Provide emergency wet well storage to extend response time to lift station failures
Actions •
oow�dn +woaue�soc 5-34
• SECTIONFIVE EL TORO WD RIsI[ASSessmBn[
Construct emergency storage structures (where feasible) at sewage lift stations
Install additional wet well storage and emergency overflow storage at the Northline Lift
Station as a component of the Northline Lift Station Improvement Project
Install additional wet well storage and emergency overflow storage at the Oso Lift '
Station as a component of the Oso Lift Station Improvement Project
Minimize Intrusion and Infiltration into sewer collection system
Actions
Implement I &I Study Flow Monitoring Project
Conduct analysis and subsequent projects to minimize Intrusion and Infiltration
Provide protection for sewer force mains
Actions
Parallel sewer force mains where feasible and appropriate
Place protective measures in creeks where crossing is determined to be vulnerable
Install jointless pipelines in creek crossings and slope easements where vulnerabili ties are
identified or during any remedial work or reconstruction
• Replace existing sewer force mains if necessary
Continue to coordinate with SOCWA regarding the condition and potential replacement
schedule for the Effluent Transmission Main
Preserve the integrity of the sewer collection system
Actions
Continue aggressive O &M program
Purchase additional sewer camera and tractor
Implement protective measures for the 4920 LM Station influent siphon
Implement La Paz Lift Station Slope/Panel Stabilization project
Implement Bridger Road Sewer Rehabilitation Project.
Goal No. 5 Human Caused Hazards
Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to
human caused hazards
Objectives
Enhance Security of ETWD Facilities
•
o,a. asnaoa os soa 5 -35
SECTIONFIVE EL TORO WD 6iskAssessment •
Actions
Implement Vulnerability Assessment recommendations in the form of the proposed
ETWD Security Enhancement Project
Improve detection abilities
Actions
Modify SCADA system, when feasible, to look for additional parameters of operation
that may indicate problem areas
Examine opportunities for on -line water quality sensing relative to potential human
induced contamination, and implement if feasible
Increase the knowledge of employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance handling
procedures and terrorism awareness.
Actions
Continue and expand safety training for all personnel who may come in contact with said
materials
Conduct additional workshops for awareness of hazardous materials incidents for all
employees •
Goal No. 6 Protect communities from potential earthquake induced dam inundation
Objectives
Maintain Stability of R -6 Reservoir Dam
Actions
Continue dam instrumentation monitoring programs
Continue to retain services of Genterra Consultants to monitor and advise ETWD Staff
regarding the stability of the R-6 dam
Periodically update R-6 Reservoir Dam Inundation Study
Maintain Readiness Pasture of ETWD Operations Staff
Actions
Conduct periodic emergency response exercises and training for staff
Participate and coordinate with Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange.
County (WEROC) and other member agencies in hazard preparedness
C]
D60W�1 10d4 M 5 -36
Cj
SECTIONME EL TORO WD
Table 5.7 -161 Tom Loss Eathostion Table
HiskAssessment
•
Hazard ZPI
Rwn�,
WST
RES
PS PRS
ER
SC
AD IS
IS
WWTP
WELL
CUER
CUSPS
PRS40
PP .
wffrp.
SOM
W61P.
OCSID
MOM
PWL
WPFL
Value IIJIM
.p
EartIguake,
Moderate
-11P
Nes"s
'15 .0
1
=5 w
2
2A 1.2 Qj
MMMM
5 2 a
U
3
SA 0.4
0 2
5.4
K5
w"MEMEME
0
250.0
3"
a
124
a
ILO
0
304
0
2FO.0 1
0
104
0
1.0
0.6
aj
0.0
biram.
S 13.0
S 30.0
$20.0
$10.0
S CIA
S 1.8
S 1.8
S -
S 0.8
S
S •
S
S
S -
S -
S
S
9 -
S 8.6
'S
IIA
High
Number
4
1
, 0
5
7
1
4
1
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.7
-7--
5.3
6&posurs
M
S 52.0
S 30.0
S .
$10.0
S 0.2
S 2.1
S 0.6
$12,01S
3.6
$ 6.0
S
S., -
S -
S r
S -
S
S
S -is
9.71S
5 12" 1
E*KtM
Number
a
0
- 0
0
01
01
01
1 0
0
of
0
0
0
0
0
0.
_2
1_
JS
-0.0
.
Filed
500.
NUM
0
0
0
0
1
0
a
3
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
8 -
S
S -
4 •
S -
$ 0.3
S -
S .•
S 12
S
S
S
S -
S
S
S
S
111 0.8
S
1 2.3
ilumber
-0
0-1
0
0
0
-0
2
0
0
0
0
a
0
D
a
0
-D.2
0.0
ure
8
is
S
S .
S -
S -
S (1.3
S -
S -
S OA
S
S -
S
4
S
S
S
S
S
-0
S
S 0.2
S
Ij
0
- 1
01
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
IN
0
0.9
0.0
um
S -IS
30.0
S JS
2.0
S 0.2
S 0.2
it
S -
S -
S 0.8
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S 0.9
S
5 311.9
Auffactlon
Made
Hk
Very Htk
Mifilliallitructure Fire
H(1
*01*w
01
0
at
01
0
a
a
c
a
a
01
0
0
a
0
0
0
0.0
Eq=uM
S
$
-is
.
S -
S -
S-
S •
S -
I
i S -
$
at
0
at
0
01
01
. 0
0
a
0
a
0
0
1 0.0
OA
41,00m)
S
S
S AS
S .
S -
S -is
-
S
j S
S
S
AS
S
S -
S JS
S
5
Number
0
c
111
0
0
a
0
0
c
7 a
a
0
0
al
a
0
0
0.0
Exposure
S
S
$
S
S
S
S
'7-
S
S
Number
2
-C
0
1
0
c
0
0
0
c
01
0
a
a
0
0
0
o.3
0.0
UFO
S 26.0
S
S -
S 2.0
S
S •S
-
S -f
-S
-.S
5
S
S
4
S
S -
S 0.3
S
213
border
0
0
0
0.0
Exposure
5
S
S
S
0
0
0
0
0
a c
0
0
0.
p1z1G"1
S
$
S
S
$
[I] Loss nine Is oust replacement value In 2006 dollars, Value shown Is found as courts of Santa at risk Iran the particular hazard times hfgh.and unit asset Value.
M Grand Total Loss value she" may Include the Sam nuft Counted MUIUPT, times for different hazards,
UM m..vmem.oraco 5-37
SECTIONFIVE GARDEN GROVE Riskusessment
5.8 GARDEN. GROVE — OBJECTIVES, GOALS. AND ACTIONS
The City of Garden Grove (Garden Grove) reviewed a set, of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including
detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard expmure/loss estimates to help identify
the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
Garden Grove Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section..
5.8.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard. mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated, to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Garden Grove's
fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified
mitigation action items.
5.8.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of Garden Grove are shown in Table 5.83-1, which presents the
existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Garden Grove. Examples of •
legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans.
5.8.3 Legal'and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.8.3 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
•
LIM 5 -38.
Local
State
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Jurisdiction
Comments
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
Authority
(Yes/No) .
Local ci ies
GG FIRE
A. Building code
Yes
Yes
No
A.QMD.
State HeaM Dept Some,
Exceptions Apply
B. Zoningordinance.
Yes
Yes
No
LOCAL
C. Subdivision ordinance or iegulations
Yes
Yes
No
Loaf
County of 0,ange
•
LIM 5 -38.
SECTIONEW GARDEN GROVE RiskAftatsment
•
5.8.4 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Garden Grove and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of
Garden Grove, as shown in Table 5.8.4 -1, provides an identification of the stab', personnel, and
Do ..m+wamaswoD 5.39
Local
State
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans
Authority
Authority
Jurisdiction
�
Comments
(YeNo)
(YesMo)
(Yeamo)
D. Special purpose ordinances (fioodplain
County of Orange
management, stomi water management
Yes
Yes
No
Regional Water Quality
hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire
Control Board (RWQCB)
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
E. Growth management ordinances (also
Local cities
called 'smart gmWoranti-sprawl
programs)
Yes .
Yes
No
Counly.ofOrange
Local cities
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
Yes
No
County of Orange
OCFA
Pemrits
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
Yes
No
Master Ply
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
Yes
No
City stag
I. An economic development plan
Yes
No
No
Locel,dges
SEMS .
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
NIMS
WEROC ,
K A posWmaster recovery plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
NIMS ".
Lapl cities:. .
L. A post4rsaster recovery ordinance
Yes
Yes
Yes
County °f Orange„
State of Cafifomia .
F.E.MA
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
Yes
Yes
No
N. McWnk &Caftrns
Yes
Yes
No
0. NCCP
Yes
Yes
Yes
P. CA DHS (Security Issues)
Yes
Yes
Yes
VulnerabadyAssessment
Q. Waste Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
State Water Resources
Control Board
5.8.4 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Garden Grove and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of
Garden Grove, as shown in Table 5.8.4 -1, provides an identification of the stab', personnel, and
Do ..m+wamaswoD 5.39
SECTIONME GARDEN GROVE
Risk Assessment •
department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan.
Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with
knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with
hazards in the community.
Table 5. &4.1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes/No
Department/Agency and position
A Planner(s) or engineers) with knowledge of
land development and land.management
Yes
Economic DevWolxnent Department .
practices .
B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained In
District coordinates with outside consultants
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
In-house and Consultants
andlorirdrasbudure
Engineering Department
C. Planners or Engineers) with an
understanding of natural andlor human -
Yes
coordinates with outside consultants .
caused hazards
D. Roodplain manager .
No
County of Orange.
E. Surveyors
No .
Outside consultant
F. Staff with education or expertise to assess
No
County of Orange
the community's vulnerability to hazards
G. Personnel skilled in GIS arWor HAMS
No
Outside Cpnsuftard .
H. Scientists famPlar with the hazards of the
No
County
community
1. Emergency manager
Yes
GG RRE
J. Grant writers
No
K. Lab Specialist
No
Contractual lab
5.8.5 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.8.5 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Garden Grove such as' cohnnunity
development block grants; capital improvements project funding, authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services;, impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
•
ooa..Hwoc a six; 5 -40
• SECTIONFWE GARDEN GROVE RISI(ASSCSSMIIIent
U
Table 5. &5-1
Fiscal Capability
5.8.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Garden Grove's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives . have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and
goal
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long -
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The Garden Grove LPG members were Zack Barrett, Robert Bermudez, Brent Hayes, Les
Ruitenschild, and Don Tunison. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Garden Grove City
Council for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary. goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
Dou. &OW-owasesDa 5 -41
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/No /Don t Know)
A.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Yes
B.
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
C.
Authority to levy taxes for speciligpurposes
No
D.
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
E.
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new
developmenhubomes
Yes
F.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds .
Yes
G.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes
H.
Incur debt through private.activity bonds
No
I.
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
Yes
J.
Grants
Yes
5.8.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Garden Grove's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives . have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and
goal
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long -
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The Garden Grove LPG members were Zack Barrett, Robert Bermudez, Brent Hayes, Les
Ruitenschild, and Don Tunison. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Garden Grove City
Council for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary. goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
Dou. &OW-owasesDa 5 -41
SECTIONFIUE GARDEN GROVE Risk Assessment
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Garden Grove's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
5.8.7 City of Garden. Grove Goals
The City of Garden Grove has developed the following five goals and objectives for their Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
1. Minimize damages to facilities / infrastructure due to natural disasters
• Protect existing assets from the effects of natural disasters.
- Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations.
- Keep Emergency Operations Plan up-to -date
- Identify all major fuel pipelines, rail transportation corridors, manufacturing facilities, and
their relative vulnerability relative to hazardous material releases.
• Support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards
— Continue to use current building and infrastructure codes, standards and guidelines
- Continue to follow current plans and guidelines:
• Protect potable water from contamination
- Strictly enforce standard separation between water infrastructure and other utilities
- Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations
- Improve security at facilities
- Maintain daily operations site visit monitoring program to each facility
- Upgrade SCADA system to existing sites as needed
2. Minimize disruption of service due to hazard induced outages
• Provide backup system for critical facilities
- Maintain interties between supply sources .
- Maintain emergency interties with neighboring water purveyors
- Protect facilities within flood plain areas
- Continue with daily site check
- Improve response time
- Keep Emergency Response Plans up- to-date
- Update system maps to reflect current condition
�$ o em,woaasssoo 5 -42
•
•
•
• SECTIONRVE GARDEN GRGVE RlskAssessmBm
- Maintain stand -by crew for emergency repair
3. Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills
- Provide emergency storage structure for all sewage lift facilities
- Protect facilities within flood plain areas
- Construct an emergency storage structure (where needed) at sewage lift stations
- Standardize and upgrade older lift station electrical and instrumentation systems
- Install permanent emergency power at all older lift stations
- Place protective measures in rives and creeks
-- Install jointless pipelines in all creek crossings and slope easements
- Parallel sewer force mains
- Replace existing force mains if necessary
- Protect facilities within flood plain areas
- Maintain stand -by crew for emergency repair
• 4. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards
• Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused hazards
- Continue and expand cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused
hazards.
- Continue and expand education for administrative and field personnel on possible human
caused hazards.
• Survey and improve site fencing and other forms of hardening facility deterrence
- Improve response time to alarm and emergency events
- Modify SCADA system, when feasible, to look for additional parameters of operation that
may indicate problem areas
• Increase the knowledge of City employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance
handling procedures and terrorism awareness.
- Continue and expand safety training for all City personnel who may come in contact
with said materials
- Conduct workshops for awareness of hazardous materials incidents for all employees.
- Examine opportunities for on -line water quality sensing relative to potential human
• induced contamination, and implement if feasible
o,am•nne owosLSOC 543
SECTIONFNE GARDEN GROVE BiskAssessment
5. Promote hazard mitigation and promote public understanding.
- Participate and coordinate with. Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County
(WEROC) and other member agencies in hazard preparedness.
- Insure sufficient equipmeK materials, and communications hardware to respond and
recover from natural hazards.
- Develop mutual aid response teams, training, and exercises for natural hazards with local
member agencies.
-Hold public meetings prior to adoption of this play
Promote a partnership between the local, county, state governments to identify, prioritize,
and implement mitigation actions.
-Use the public media to cover mitigation activities.
- Publish newsletters for the public and business leaders with information regarding hazardous
mitigation of natural and manmade hazards.
- Develop fidl cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused hazards.
MWooa.omunsowmsoc $4
0
•
C
0
SEMONME GARDEN GROVE.
Table 5.8-1 Garden Crave ]nee FatimationTable
ffla SS@Ssmen ,
Hour
k111Fa
W.0
Reb
WTP
P8
PRS
HT
Abld
LS
'. WWTP
WELL
WWM
Tobm Lon
Replacement
p
-+
i7A
f0A
f0A
DIEMER
OUSPS
PRMET
PP
SOCWA
0CS13
LS-0CSD
PWL
WWL
Value III Sol
2A
O2
02
OA
7A
SA
., SA
3A
250.9
75.0'
12.0
120
70.0
250.0
10.0
. 1A
.DS
ExMpuab
6n
0
8
4
0
0
0
a
0
0
Mode
are
57.0
s.
$104.0
S -
S'
$10.0
S OA
S 2A
S 2/
'S 8.0
S -
d -
$42.0
If i
S -
$ -
f -
E
S
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
-
-
S -
s 67A
E 138.5
i 310A
Hg
Exposuro
0
0
0-
0
0
a
0
1.3
34.9
S. -S
d.•S
f -Is
'•S'12d
-s3AS
=E.
;. -S
Numher
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
r
.rE
-S
S
E 1.35
17.di
29A
VeryX
Exposue
..0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.0
M
S
$ -
S
If -
S
S -
S -;
S .e
r
S '•
S
S
S
S
S -
S
S
S
Woad
Number
p
0
1
1
. 1
0
3
.+
p
-
E -
i
10D
un
M
s
s -13
s -
s -
s 0.3
s. 0.8
s 3.0
s OA
s •
$10.5
s -
If '-
s -
S
S
E
E
s
IS
her
8
0
5
1
z
-
-
14.1
S 32.3
812
500
6rynun
,.f0
0
0
0
0
0
44.2
0.0
$104.0
s •
S -.
s10.0
s OA
s zA
s 1.8
s 3.0
s DA
;
S36.0 1S
•,
s r
$ -
s .
$
s
Lssds;ds
r
p
o
o
o
o
.
.
E -.
S 44.2
s .
i 2012
,.
a
o
o
o
0
of
Ezpoeuro.
-
S
i -S
-s
-S
S -.S.•S
-S
If .1
If
S. -E
-E
: -S
-E
E -;
-S
LlpuBaatlon
r
5
0
1
z
1
z-
0
p
rS.
Expos;,_
0
a
Oil
3.
If 85.0
If
If -
$ 4.6
E -
If 03
If 1.2
If 3.0
E OA
If
517,5
-
E -
S
$ -
S.
E
S
Number
1
0
0
„ 3.
.S
0
S 23.7
S 84.e
i 1802
ITO
Eepoeure
17.8
84.7
If 13A
$ -
; -
S zA
1 $. OA
S OA
S -
S 3.01S
OA
If
S -:
If -
S -
S •
f
S
S
Number
0
0
0
01
0
of
01
111
0
0
.$10.5
01
'0
-
•
-
S 17A
E 42A
i 89.8
Very Hp
Exposure
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
S .1
If
If -
If •
If -
If •.
.S JS
S -
d -
If -
If -
S'
3
E -
E -
If -
If -
S -
If -
i
tlIhMUudun F7n
Number
p
a
0
0
0
Oil
oil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exposure
0.
0
.8
3
M
If
If
If
If
If -
If
S -
If -;
':-
If -
If 3A
If -
S -
S
If .
If
E
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
or
a
-IS
-
If pA
S 1.9
i et
Hilt
Exposure
A
0
0
0.0
03
S
E
$
i
Number
0
0
D
0
-0
0
0
0
.-
00
0.-0
Ee
Exposure
S
S
.
.
-
-. -
S -E
$ -
E -
S
i
01 Grand Total l f 922.8 I.
M Loss value l suet ran shmentvalueinde O dolman. Value shown is found ueounzofa MINAt Ask from: the Particular hazard tknaa, Ihl°r rd unit asset value.
pj Grand Total Loss vahn shown may Include tlw soma assts counted muNipla times for different hazards.
UM
aw�.maewawou 5;45" ..
SECTIORRVE LAGUNA BEACH RiskAssessiunt
5.9 LAGUNA BEACH - OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND ACTIONS
Laguna Beach County Water District (Laguna Beach) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps
including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposurelloss estimates to .
help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction See Section 4 for additional details.
Laguna Beach Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.9.1 Capability Assessment
Laguna Beach is currently developing their capabilities.
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their, responsibilities
associated to' hazard mitigation planning: as well as codes, ordinances, and plans ahrady in place
associated.to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Laguna Beach's
fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified
mitigationaction items.
5:9.2 1 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of Laguna Beach are shown in Table 5.9.3-1 ,* which presents the
existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Laguna Beach. Examples of
legal .. and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building.. codes, zoning .ordinances,, subdivision
ordinances,: special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital, improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans..
5.9.3 Legaland -Regulatory Capability
Table 5.9.3 -1
Legal and: Regulatory Capablllty
Legal
and Reg
dry Capability
Local
Does Stafe
Higher Level
Regulatory Tads (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Prohibit?
Jurisdiction
A��y
Comments. .
(Yesgto)
(YesiNO)
MetNo} .
C. Binding code
Yes
No
No
Back flow prevention
D. Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
No
Cdy of Laguna Beach
E. Subdndsion ordinance or regulations
Yes
No
No :'
Cuty d Laguna Beach
ooamuntiaonussoc; 546
•
•
•
• SECTIONRVE I LAGUNA BLEACH Risk Assessment
J
•
Legg al
and Regulatorqy Cap bility
Local Does State Higher Level
Jain
Regulatory Tools (ordinances codes, plans)
Authority Prohibit? Comments
(Yes/No) (YesMo) (yesm)
The County of Orange has flood and
F. Special purpose ordinances ploodplain
fire control responsibilflies in the
management, steanwater management
No
No
Yes
nincorporated areas. The City of
hillside or steep slope ordnanos, wtkifire
aguna Beach has storm water and fine
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
tml responsibilities within the city
miparato grits.
G. Growth management ordnances (also
caged 'smartgmwlh'orand-sprawl
No
No
No
programs)
H. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
No .
I. General or comprehensive Man
No
No
No
J. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No .
K An economic development plan
No
No
No
L An emergency response plan
Yes
No
Yes
SEMSMIMS
M. A post - disaster recovery plan
Yes
No
Yes
A. A post- disaster recovery ordnance
No
No
No
B. Real estate disclosure requirements
No
No
Yes
5.9A Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Laguna Beach and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation of brts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of
Laguna Beach, as shown in Table 5.9.41, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and
department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan.
Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as plarmerstengineers with
knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skids and scientists familiar with
hazards in the community.
0
ow,...mz.o�cmw 5-47
SEOTIONME LAGUNA BEACH RisltAsses�nent
Table 5.9.41
Administrative and Technical Capacity
StafflPersonnd Resources
Yes/No
Deparbnent/Agency and Position
C. Planner(s) or engineer(s) YO ImovWedge
. The City of Laguna Beach is responsible for land.
of land development and land
NO
management with in the corporate limits.
management practices
D.: Engineers) or professional(s) trained in
The Laguna Beach County Water District and the City
construction practices related to buildings
YES
of Laguna Beach have engineers trained in
and/or iafrasbucture
construction practices.
E. Planners or Engineer(s) with an
undaistandmgof natural "or human-
NO
caused hazards
F. Floodplam manager
NO
The County of Orange Is responsible for flood plain
management
G. Surveyors
NO
H. Staff vA education or egerdse to
Laguna Beach County Water District Engineering
assess the community's vulnerabgdy to
YES
Department
hazards
I. Penwnrw.l sloled in GIS and /or HAZUS .
NO
J. Scientists fmAar with the hazards of the
NO
community
A Emergency manager
YES
The Laguna Beach County Water District General
Manager
A) Grant wrflers
YES
The Laguna Beach County Water District Engineering
Department
o�nvroaassoa 5-48
•
S SECTIONFIW LAGUNA BEACH Riskas essment
5.9.5 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.9.5 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Laguna Beach such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard-prone areas.
Table 5.9.54
Fiscal Capability
5.9.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Laguna Beach's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential.
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, Laguna Beach has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective
.and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the Laguna Beach
• planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, LBCWD representatives met with consultant
"M oo .tmar�w 5 -49
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to
Use
(Yes/No/Don't Know)
C..:
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
NO
D.
Capital Imprmments projectfunding
YES
E.
Authodty to levy tms for speftpurposes
NO
F.
Fees forwate , sewer, gas, or electric service
YES
G.
Impact fees for hotaebuyers or developers for new
devetopmenWhomes
YES
N.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
YES
I.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
NO
A.
Incur debt through private activity bonds
NO
B.
Withhold spending In hazard -prone areas
NO
5.9.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Laguna Beach's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential.
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, Laguna Beach has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective
.and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the Laguna Beach
• planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, LBCWD representatives met with consultant
"M oo .tmar�w 5 -49
SECTIONRVE LAGUNA BEACH Risk Assessment •
staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they
related to the overall Plan Once developed, LBCWD staff presented them to the LBCWD Board of
Directors for their approval
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary- goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public. input At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard-related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Laguna Beach's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Table 5.9.6 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
000,�w,eaa-0s�soc 5 -50
•
r 1
L J
Programs PWns
Effect on Loss Reduction
Agency Name
Poilcies,
Point of Contact,
Comments
(ilissiordFunction)
Regulations,
Address, Phone
Support
Fadlitate
Hinder
Pundhrg,orPractices
San Diego Regional
Water Board
1. Water Quardy
Joanne m (�)
YES
YES
NO
.�QCB�
1 Public Works and
Responsible
City of Laguna Beach
Engineering with in
Steve May
YES
YES
NO
for storm viater
the corporate limits
(949) 4970351
and waste
of the city
water
2. Construction of
Inspection and
public works
Bob Koch
YES
YES
NO
project'
projects with in the
(949)497-0340
coordination
city corporate limns
Renner Knchey
Laguna Beady County
(949) 493 -1041
WaterDictrk:t'
1.Waterdisbibudon
Hof
YES
YES.
NO
the a
County Water
District
Janes R. Nestor,
2. Water Distribution
District Engineer
YES
YES
NO
and maintenance
and Director of
Opemdons
000,�w,eaa-0s�soc 5 -50
•
r 1
L J
• SECTIONFIVE LAGUNA BEACH Risk Assessment
•
5.9.6.9 LBCWD Goals
GOAL 1: Reduce the District's Vulnerability to Disruption.
Objective:
• Provide and maintain security at all reservoir and pump station sites.
• Inspect each reservoir and pump station site on a daily basis.
• Monitor any suspicious activity at or near reservoirs and pump station sites.
• Consider options to access alternative supplies from the OCWD groundwater basin and/or other
projects to improve reliability.
Actions:
• Keep all fences in good repair and all entries equipped with locks.
• Maintain staggered daily surveillance at all major facilities.
• Do not promote or permit recreational use of District facilities.
• Continually monitor the SCADA system at each district facility.
•
o;miwaa-0e soo 5 -51
Programs, Plana
Effect an Loss Reduction
Agency Name
Policies,
PaMofcontact,
Comments
(64ssionlFuncdon)
Reguladom,
Address, Phone
-
Funding or Practices
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
County of Orange
2009 Edinger Ave.
Orange County
Ana Ca
YES
YES
NO
Health Care Agency.
9Sa
Department of
State of Cardomia,
Healh Services
20 Civic Corder
Department of Health
Division of Ddn)dng
Plaza ,Santa Ana
YES
YES
NO
Services
Water and
92701
Environmental
.
Management
Cad Schwing 200
Cartomia Coastal
Oceangate,10
Commission South
Floor
YES
YES
NO
Coast Dishid
Long Beach, Ca
901102
•
5.9.6.9 LBCWD Goals
GOAL 1: Reduce the District's Vulnerability to Disruption.
Objective:
• Provide and maintain security at all reservoir and pump station sites.
• Inspect each reservoir and pump station site on a daily basis.
• Monitor any suspicious activity at or near reservoirs and pump station sites.
• Consider options to access alternative supplies from the OCWD groundwater basin and/or other
projects to improve reliability.
Actions:
• Keep all fences in good repair and all entries equipped with locks.
• Maintain staggered daily surveillance at all major facilities.
• Do not promote or permit recreational use of District facilities.
• Continually monitor the SCADA system at each district facility.
•
o;miwaa-0e soo 5 -51
SECTIUNFIVE LAGUNA BEACH BiSkAMSSI ent •
• Set up policing procedures with City and County law enforcement.
• Evaluate and consider participation in alternatives investigation.
GOAL 2: Reduce Water Service Outages and Maintain Reliability During Disastrous Events:
Objective:
• Reduce water service outages from distribution and storage facilities
• Maintain reliable water operations during earthquake, flood or fire storm.
Actions:
• Keep combustible materials away from distribution and storage facilities.
• . Physically inspect all distribution and storage facilities daily.
Seismically retrofit existing steel reservoirs that are 20 years and older.
• Seismically evaluate buried or partially buried concrete reservoirs and vaults.
• Establish protocol for SCADA system losses.
• Establish a priority evaluation for all water facilities.
Ulm
•
•
SEOTIONFIW LAGUNA BEACH RiskAssasam ut
Table E.9 -1 Lapma Beach Load Estimation Tabu
Hanrd M
et a
im .W8T
13A
RE$
30A
WIP
10A
PS
2A
PRO
02
BF
0A
SC
02
AOM
7A
LS.
CA'.
WWTP
,5A -
LI
7A..
OIENER,
250.0
OC41P5
3LO
PRBJAki
124`
PP
12.0
WWTP-
SOCWA
70.0
�-
OCSO
SSOA
LS-0CSO
10A
PWL .
fA
WWL
0.5
VaMWISH
EFNpnh
MpdarWa
Nu0
Eep
0
0
-
0
'0
0
0-
' 0
0
0
0
. 0.0
OA
Hp
M
umbOf
powe
21
0
0
12
4
4
$ -
3
S-
2
S-
0
S. -$
0
-$.
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
- 0.
0.0
Number
5rpoeuro
$ 273.0
o
$ -
0
S -
$24.01$
0
0.8
.0
S 12
0
'$ 1.8
.0
S 6.0
11
1111 -,
0
$ . -
0
S -.
0
S. -is
0
-
$ -
. b
S : -.
-
S -
0
5.. -
0
S -
S 18.7
0,
S ., .1$
0,0
323.5
Flood
100
Number
Eeposuro
s
0
.19
0
-
0
s -
s -
0
s JS
0
-
0
s -
s -
.$ -
0-
s -
S -
0
s -
s -
0
s -
o
s -
s -
s -
p
$
500
M
bar
S -
Y
s -
0
s. -
0
s -
1
s -'
0
s. -
o-
s -
0
$ �-
0
s -
s ,
0
s -
0
s -
0
s -
0
s -
0.
s -
0
s -
0
S -
0
s -
.. o
s OA
s -
OA
S 0.4
., .
EaOaarse
M
ler
$ 131
8
3 -
0
s -
0
S 2 .0'$
I
-
s -
1
s -
S -
.0
s -
0
s -
s -
0
s -
0
s. -
0
s -
s -
0
s -
S -
0
S. -
0
S 0d
/
s. -
0A
s „ 5.1
Landsltla
M
Number
Egwuel
$117.0$
-
0
rs8.0$02$0n$
0
0
-.$
-
0
S. -
0
.S -S
-.
0
s, -;
-$
o
-$
-$
o
-$
o
r$
-$
4.55..
-$
01
130.0
Llgand..
Mode
H
Number
Fa ma
0
0
11
0
0
S -
0
s -
$.. -
0
s -
s .. -
0
s -,
S. -.
0
s
0
0
K
..$
0.0
Very '
umber
Eeponme
$ -
o
f -
0
$ -
0
$ JS
-
0
$ -
0
i -
0
$ -is
0
-
0.
$ -
0
$ -IS
0
-
0
$ ,
0
E. -
0
$ -
S -
0
$ -
0
S . -
0
0.0
WIMIllel4truetors Fin
M
Number
s -is
01
-
0
$ -
0
S -is
0
-
0
$ -
0
5 -
0
s JS
0
-
" 0
S -
0
$ -
S r
0
; -
0
s -
0
S -
O
5 -
r D
s -
D
S -
0
s -
C -
0.0
s
Exposure
Hp
M
Number
s
$ -
0
$ r
4
S -
0
s ,
.$ -
t
-
s .-
0
s -
0
Al
' 0
-.
0
s -
s -
0
s -
s -
0
s -
0
S -
E 0.9.
1.3
5
6A
0.3
IS
ts-o
bar
8 13$
-
11
E 8.0
0
0
..
0
$ r
0Eaha
S r
$' -
S -
5 -
s -
$ -
s -
s
s -
$' 18
S -
s 22.8
3 -
$ -
s -
s -
s -.
S -
S 0.0
$ -
$ 0.0
Grand Total l $ �0331
M Loss Tot le assn! value shown may In M 2000 Sam Value shown b Tound a count d assail at Nak hob the particular hoard [Imes hl_ahrond unttaeuS valw-
j2j 6rarM Tonl Loss valus shown may inalutle the soma assets aouMaq multiple tlrgaa for d1/NrenthaaMs.
9M I . �vomwae 5 -53
SECTIONME . ' LA HABRA
5.10 LA HABRA —OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
HIMAsSOSSIM 111 •
The City of La Habra (La Habra) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard Wraps including detailed
critical facility information and localized potential hazard expostire/loss estimates to help identify the top
hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
La Habra Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section
5.10.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing. hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning, as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation. planning. The second part of the Assessment provides La Habra's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5.10.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory. capabilities of La Habra are shown in Table 5.10.2 -1, which presents the existing
ordinances and,codes that affect the physical or built environment of La Habra Examples of legal and/or •
regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building, codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances,
special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital
improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure
plans. .
Table 5.10.2 -1
Legal and /regulatory Capability
D...m oaauoo 5 -54
•
Local
State
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans
Authority
Authority
Jurisdiction
Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(YesMo)
(Yes/No)
A Building code
Yes
No
No
planning, Code
Enforcement
S. Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
No
Planning
C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations
Yes
No
No
Planning
D. Special purpose ordinances (bodpialn
County Orange
management, storm water management,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Army Corps of Engineers
or sheep slope ordinances, wtidtire
ordinances, hazard setbadr requirements )
RWQCB,USFWSfCDRG
E. Growth management ordinances (also
cded'smart growth'oranti -sprawl
Yes
No
No
Planning
Prograrns)
D...m oaauoo 5 -54
•
• SECTIONEW LA HABRA Risk Assessment
•
Table 5.10.2- 1(continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans )
Local
Authority
(Yes/No)
state
Authority
(Yes/No)
Other Level
Jurisdiction
Authority
(Yes/No)
Comments
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
No
Planning
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
No
No
City General Plan
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No
Water Master Plan
I. An economic development plan.
Yes
No
No
CommurityDevelopment
I An emergency response plan
Yes
No
No
SEMS, WEROC,NIMS
K. A post- dsader recovery plan
Yes
No
No
NIMS
L A po"master recovery ordinance
Yes
No
No
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
Yes
No
No
State Board of Realtors
N. Caltrans
No
Yes
No
O. CA DHS (Security Issues)
Yes
No
No
Vulnerabgity Assessment
P. TndeM & 22 (potable)
Yes
Yes
Yes
USEPA
Q. Waste Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
State Water Resources
Control Board
5.10.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity.
The following is a.summary of existing departments in La Habra and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of La
Habra, as shown in Table 5.10.3 -1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department
resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific
resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with
knowledge of land development and land. management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade lards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS. skills and scientists familiar with
hazards in the community.
o.amwww soa 5 =55
SECTIONFWE LA HABRA Risk Assessinetn •
Table 5.10.3 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes /No
DeparbnenUAgency and Position
A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) v6th
Pubic Works (Engineers)
knowledge of land development and
Yes
planning (Planners)
land management practices
B. Engineer (s)orpmfessiondl(s)trained
Building OtWalslPubficWorks
in construction practices related to .
Yes
( Engtneers)& Contractors
buildings and/or inkasbuckne
C: Plamers or Engheer(s) with an
Public Works (Engineers)
understanding of natural andlor
Yes
Planning (Planners)
hwnancoused hazards
D. Floodplainmanager
No
County of Orange
E: Surveyors .
Yes
Public Works Traffic Engineers (Technicians)
F. Staff with education or.eVertise to .
assess the commurity s vulnerability
No
WEROC / County of Orange
to hazards
G. Personnel skilled to GIS andlor
Yes
Center for Demographic Research, CSUF
HAZUS
H. Scientists famiGa with the hazards of
the oommunity
No
County of Orange, Cal Tech, local Universities
I. Emergeng manager
Yes
Police IPu4cWorks /Water Manager
Senior Water Worker
J. Grant wdters
Yes
Pubic Works / Administrative Analyst
K Lab Specialist
No.
Clinical Labs, Contracted
5.10A Fiscal Capability
Table 5.10.41 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to La Habra such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding;. authority to -levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending.in
hazard -prone areas.
s000.ownsononsoc+ 5 -56
r1
U
•
SECTMONFIVE
LA HABRA.
Table 5.10.4 -1
Fiscal Capability ,
Risk As$esthient
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/No/Don't Know)
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
No
Capital improvements proud fundbig
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
No
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyersor developers for new deve lopmenbuwmes
Yes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes
Incur debt through private activity bonds
Yes
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
Yes
Grants
Yes
5.90.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are La Habra's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions: Far
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to. achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment: These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan Once developed, City staff presented them to the La Habra City Council for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identificationtprofiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by La Habra's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
•
ma b oeosrsca '5 -57
SECTIONFIVE LEA HABRA RlskAssassmem •
Table 5.10.5 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Un
•
is
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction*
Agency Name
Policies,
Title
-
(Mission/Function)
Regulations,
Address
Comments
Funding, or
Phone Contact
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
WatedSewer Manager
CITY OF LA HABRA
1. Water Division
621 West Lambert Road
WATERDIVISION
Best Management
X
X
1. The mission of the
P��
La Hama, CA 90631
La Habra Water
(562) 995.9792
Division is; to provide
sate, high quardy
WatedSewerManager
ddridng water and
2 Vulnerability
621 West Lambert Road
also to ensure 100
Assessment
La Habra, CA 90631
X
X
percent fire protection
and adequate water
(562) 9059792
pressure to the
residents. of
WatedSewer Manager
Habra; to provide
vi
3.WaterEmergency
621 West Lambert Road
these water delivery
Response Plan /
WEROC SE MS, MMS
La Habra, CA 90631
X
X
services at the lowest
possible cost in a
(562)9058792
safe woddng
environment for all
Water/Sewer Manager
City Water Division
4.Urban Water
621 West Lambert Road
X
X
employees..
Management Plan
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 905 -9792
Watad$ ewer Manager
621 West Lambert Road
5. Water Master flan
X
X
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 905-0792
Un
•
is
•
•
SECTIONFIVE LA HABRA HIM Assessment
Table 5.10.5- 1(continued)
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
)`7
oer„mdmvsa�emvsoc 5 -59
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction*
Agency Name
Policies,
Regulations,
Title
Address
-
Comments
(MissionlFunction)
Funding, or
Phone Contact
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
Planning Manager
CITY OF LA HABRA
201 East Le Habra Blvd.
COMMUNITY
1. City General Plan
X
X
DEVELOPMENT
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 905 -9700
Police Department
CITY OF LA HABRA
Z City Emergency
150 Nash Euclid Street
X
X
POLICE .
Management Plan
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 905 -9750
Assistant thief
Fire Slation #1
1. Inventory Program of
850 West Le Habra Blvd
X
X
Hazardous Waste
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 6914692
My Fire
Assistant Chef
Fire Station #1
2. Fire Code
850 West La Habra Blvd
X
X
Inspections
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 6914692
Director
Los Angeles District
US Army Corps d
1. Reservoir Regulation
915 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 980
X
X
Engineers
Prado Dam
.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 452 -3908
)`7
oer„mdmvsa�emvsoc 5 -59
SECTIONFIVE LA HA13RA Risk Uses sine ®t •
Table 5.10.5 -1 (continued)
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
5.10.6 . City of La. Habm Goals
The City of La Habra has developed two goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Goal 1. Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters
Goal 2. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused Hazards
5.10.7 Objectives and Actions
Goal Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters
• Objective: Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability to the effects of natural disasters.
— Action: Continue inspections to ensure retrofitting is in place.
— Action: Secure above ground assets in all buildings, at well sites, booster stations, pressure
reducing valves, emergency interties, and main water supplies.
• 'Objective: Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards
— Action: Continue louse current building and infrastructure codes, standards and guidelines
— Action: Continue to follow current plans and guidelines
000.,�emvsoum�soo 5 =6U
•
r1
LJ
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction_
Agency Name
(Mission/Function)
Policies,
Regulations,
'TMe
Address
Comments
Funding, or
Phone Contact
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
1. Enhance leghkh&
370 Amapda Ave. Ste 114
US Fish & Wildife
use & enjoyment of
Torrance CA 90501
X
X
Service
migratory birds & other
vn'ldlife
(310) 328.1516
Division of DrirWng Water &
Environmental Management
U.S . Envronmentai
1. Water Quality,
California DHS
California
Protectan Agency/
regulate and update
X
X.
Office of Drinbng
drinking water qualty
P.O. Box 942732 -MS216
Water
standards.
Sacrarmto,CA94234-
4320
(916) 323.6111
5.10.6 . City of La. Habm Goals
The City of La Habra has developed two goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Goal 1. Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters
Goal 2. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused Hazards
5.10.7 Objectives and Actions
Goal Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters
• Objective: Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability to the effects of natural disasters.
— Action: Continue inspections to ensure retrofitting is in place.
— Action: Secure above ground assets in all buildings, at well sites, booster stations, pressure
reducing valves, emergency interties, and main water supplies.
• 'Objective: Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards
— Action: Continue louse current building and infrastructure codes, standards and guidelines
— Action: Continue to follow current plans and guidelines
000.,�emvsoum�soo 5 =6U
•
r1
LJ
• SECTIONFIVE LA HASPA RISMSessment
— Action: Evaluate options for increasing pumping from the La Habra Groundwater Basin to
further diversify reliability to the City.
Goal Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and' to ,existing. assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards
• Objective:. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused
hazards
— Action: Develop and expand cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused
hazards.
— Action: Continue and expand education for administrative personnel on possible human
caused hazards.
• Objective: Increase the knowledge of government employees and the .public of extremely
hazardous substance handling procedures and terrorism awareness.
— Action: Continue and expand OSHA training for all employees who may come in contact
with said materials.
- Action: Conduct public workshops for awareness of hazardous materials incidents for
government employees.
•
ooame rt+ a oc4revsoo 5 -61
SESMONFIVE a HASP►
Table 3.10.1 Ls Habra Lou Estimation Table
81sk Asseumed
;;eke
s
WST
15.0
RES.
SB.O
WTP
10A
Pf
3.0
PRS
B4'
ER
03
SC
0.6
ADM
SA .
LS
'.OA.
IVYiTP
6A
WELL
3.5
DIEMER
.' 2�
OCd6PS
35A
PRS4AET
12A
PP
ILO
WWTP-
$"A
00A
�WWTP•
OCSD
250A
L&OCSO
104
PWL
to
WWL
OA
Total Less
Valid ]Set
r
ro
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
. 0.
- A
m
f -
3
f -
0
f
0
E •.
3
f -
24
f -
1
f.
0
f -
S -
0
f -
f -
1
f-
0
f
f -•
0
f -
f -
0
f •.
0
.-
6.4
E
OA
f
r
S 39A
2
f . -
0
3
.0
f BA
3
f 4A
33
f 0.3
'f
4
f 3A
0
f
0
S. -
0
f 3A
f -
0
f' -
0
f
S. •
0
f -
0
f -
0
7$-
.'6A
13.2
f -
Fa
f 63A
S 28A
f •
f -
0
f 6A
0
f' 6A
f OA
S 2A
IS
0
f •,
0
f -
0
f •
S.
f -
0
Si -
0
f
i.
0
f
13.2
f
0.0
66.1
F7aed
100
500
H
CEq*uo
f -
0
f -
0
E •
f •
0
f OA-
0
f •
0
f OA
0
3
0
f •
0
f
0
f
0
f -
.0
f
0
f -
f -
0
f '-
0
f •
0
f •
0
f 0.3
0.7
f -
0.0
f 1.6
Erpesuro
f -
0
f -
0
f -
0
f -
f -
3
f -
0
f •
0
f -
0
f -
0
f -
f -
0
.f -
0
f -
0
f
0
-
f
0
-
0
f -
0
f 0.7
0.
f -
OA
f 0.7
LlquiNCtlsn
Mode
Number
Expesuro
S -
0
f •
f -
0
f 2A
0
f 0.6
f •
0
f -
f -
f •
.0
f •
0
f. -
f
0
f •
0
f -
f •
0
f -
f -
0
•
f 0.4
OA
f -
f 30
H
M
Number
Exposuro
f -
0
E
$ -
f -
0
f -
0
f
f -
-0-0
i -
f
f -
0
f -
f. .•
0
f -
0
It .-
f -is
0
-
f
0
0
0.0
VeryH
Number
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-'-0-0
0
0
0,0
0.0
f
OA
f
um
Number
Esteems
E •.
'0
E
f -
0
f r
0
f-
0
f-
0
f .-
0
S
0
f -
0
S •'
f -
0
S -
0
E -
0
S r
0
f -
S -
0
S -
f
0
S -
0.3
f
OA
f
MUNUSOucNn Flt,
Hq
Number
S -
S
0
S
0
S
0
S
f -
'f . -.
0
f
f -.
f •.
f -
S -
f -
0
S-
0
S -
0
f
-
0
S 0.3
0.
S
0:0
.3
5glesuro
Exhme
Number
E -
0
s -
0
i -
0
i -
0
i 0.2
s -
0
i -
i -
s -
s
is -
E. =
i r
i -
i -
E -
s -
s -
i -
$ -
S 0.2
Expmme
M
s
[1] Loss value b asset replacement value in 2006 dollars. Value 'brown IS found as count It nets It risk from the particular hazard times hlehrond unit asset value.
r4 Grand Total Loss value shown may Include the same assets counted multiple the" for different harards-
VIM 5-62
QWaW Tote1 I i 123.91
•
• SECTIONFIVE MESA
•
5.11 MESA— OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
Risk Assessment
The Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps
including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposuretloss estimates to
help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
Mesa Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.11.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary: of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as .well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Mesa's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5.11.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of Mesa are shown in Table 5.11.2 -1, which presents the existing
ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Mesa. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include; the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans.
Table 5.11.2 -1
Legal and Regulatory' Capability'
17
oa,.,�.n,e.oamsoo 5 -63
Local
State
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans
Authority
Authority
Muth city
Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
(YesMo)
Local Cities
OCFA
A. Budding code
Yes
No
Yes
.
At1MU .
HCA < SlaudCounty
Local Cities
B. Zoning ordunuice
Yes
No
Yes
County of orange
Coastal Commission
Loral Cities
C. Subdivision ordinance or regdations
Yes
No
Yes
County of Orange
17
oa,.,�.n,e.oamsoo 5 -63
SECTIONFIVE Mesa BISMSessment
Table 5.11.2.1 (continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Un 5 -64
f�
•
Local
state
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans
Authority
Authority
Jurisdiction
Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
(YesMo)
County of Orange
Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS/CDFG
D. Special purpose ordinances (iloodplain
Coastal Commissiow.
management, storm water management
No
No
Yes
Regional Water Quality
hillside or steep slope ordinances, wild ire
ordinances, hazard setback requirement
Control Board ( RWQCB)
SAWPA
OCFA
CDF1Forest Service
E. Growth management ordinances (also
Local Coles
called *smart gruwth'oranti-sprawl
Yes
No
Yes
County of Orange
programs)
OCFA
Local Cities
F. Site plan.roview requirements
Yes
No
Yes.
County of Orange
OCFA . .
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
No
No
MCWD
MCWD
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
Yes
RWQCB
LAFCO
Local Cities
1. An economic development
tpian
Yes
No
Yes
MCWD
NIMS
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
No
Yes
SEMS
WEROC
K A postdisasterrecovery plan
Yes
No
Yes
NIMS
Local cities
L. A post - disaster recovery law
Yes
No
Yes
AQMD
CA DHS
School District
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
No
No
Yes
County Tax
Realtor
Un 5 -64
f�
•
• SECTIORMT. MESA RisRAssessineat
F—
L-1
•
5.11.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Mesa and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Mesa, as
shown in Table 5.11.3 -1, provides an identification of the staff personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners /engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
Table 5.11.3 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
5tatUPersonnel Resources
YWNo
DepartmentfAgency and Position
Planner(S) or enghneer(s) YAM kno%4edge oI hand
No
District coordinates with outside ConSURantS
development and land management practices
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction
Yes
In house and xith outside consultants
practices related to buldin9s araUor hr(rastmctue
Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of
Yes
In house and with outside consultants:
natural and/or human-caused hazards
Floodplain manager
No
County of Orange
Surveyors
No
District coordinates with outside consultants
Staff with education or expertise to assess the
Yes
In house and 'with outside consultants
community's vulnerabdiity to hazards
Personnel skged In GIS and/or HAZUS
Yes
In house and with outside consultants
Scientists radar with the hazards of the community
No
District coordinates with outside consultants
NskManagemantCoordinator
Emergency manager
Yes
WEROC
District Engineer
Grant writers
Yes
Office of the General Manager
Other— Lab Spedaflsl
No
District coordinates with outside consultors
Other— Water Quality
Yes
WaterQualiityCoordinntor
o enn aonsuc 5 -65
SECTIONFIVE
5.11A Fiscal Capability
MESA
Risk Assessment
Table 5.11.41 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Mesa such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
Table 5.11.41
Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources
-
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(YeslNolDon't, Know)
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
No
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specMc purposes
Yes (wdh voter approval)
Fees for water service
Yes
impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developmealsAwmes
Yes
Incur debt ifxough general obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through speck tax and revenue bonds
Yes
Incur debt through private aWvly bonds
Yes
Wtddwld spendfig In hazardlprwe areas
Yes
Grants
Yes
5.11.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Mesa's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the District has identified asange of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
Doa. aMV60&6O sDa 5 -66
0
ir1
�J
E
• SECTIONFIVE MESA RiskAssessment
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff
and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan Once developed, District staff presented them to the Mesa Board of Directors for their
approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Mesa's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard
Mitigation Wonting Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
5.11.5.1 Mesa Consolidated WD Goals
GOAL GI: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Disruption
OBJECTIVE:
• G1101: Improve site security
• GI/02: Improve response time
( •
ACtI0Ai5:
• GI/01/Al: Update facility entry security
• GI/02/Al: Install wireless communication throughout the District
• GI/02/A2: Keep Emergency Operations Plan up- to-date
IMPLEMENTA770M STRATEGY:
District constructs site improvements , as respective facilities are scheduled for replacement or
refurbishment Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or
available through financial assistance programs.
GOAL G2: Minimize Water Service Loss and Ensure Reliable Supply During Disaster Events
OBJECTIVE:
• G2/01: Prevent water loss from reservoirs
• G2102: Increase available water supplies
ACTIONS:
•
G2101/Al: Conduct seismic survey of reservoir structures — retrofit as required
cee.��n�soa 5 =67
SECTIONFNE MESA BistAssessment •
• G2/O1 /A2: Conduct seismic survey of other key Mesa facilities — retrofit as required
• G2102/Al: Evaluate options for existing wells and potential replacement wells
• G2/02/A2: Install generator at new well,site
•
• SECTIONFNE MESA RistAssessmeat
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Contract for engineering studies for site - specific recommendations for structural stiffening Contract for
engineering studies on feasibility and sites) of new well(s).
GOAL G3,: Protect Imported Water Reliability
OBJECT1m:
• G3101: Improve security of MET sources
• G3/02: Maintain local interties
ACTIONS:
• G3101 1Al': Relocate section of OC-44 near San Diego Creek to reduce vulnerability to storm
damage
• G3/02/Al: :Maintain relationships with IRWD, City of Huntington Beach, City of Newport.
Beach and City of Santa Am.
•
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
District staff will coordinate with neighboring water districts,, MWDOC, and MET to prioritize and
implement projects on a regional basis. Continue to coordinate with neighboring districts for interties.
RED
ow.�«a, s o,onsa+ 5 -69
Table 5.11.1 Mess Lowe Estimation; Table
HanrdTyps
Yam+
WST I
RES
WTP PS
PRS..
E7T SC I
ADM 1
L;
WWTP
WELL
01EM0t
OC41 PS
PR840
PP
WWTP-
SOLWA
WWTP.
OC80
I.M611
PWL-
WWL
" Taal low
Vabs.Ul3M
cup amem Cos
Eartquab
s
Number
13.0
0
As t0A LO
0 0 0
02
0.3 OA 1
3A
OA SA 3A
350.0
354
12A
0
ILO
30A
250.0 10.0 1 110 QS
..-0
pM a
-S
S
S
S
S -
.0
'S
Ss . . -0
.-0
Ss
S --0
S
-0
S
Hfi
3
2
0
10,
--=0
0,
0
0
0
0
0
3
0.0
ro
ENEEE+xxauxPM
S 3"
S -
$10.0
If 6.0
S 0.8
S 4.6
S 1A
s BA
S
If -
E35.0
S -
S •
S
S -
E
E
32.8
"
$
135.7
Ob9atbwsaewwuu
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
OA
0.0
ppmmpppmem m m
•0 .
s
s
$
s
16
-
500 .
r
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
8
0
0
88
A
M
S -
S -
S -
S
S -
S 1.3
3 -
S -
S-
$28.0
S -
S
-
S -$
$ 8.8
$
So
r
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2
OA
e
o0
S 13.0
S -
$10.0
S A
S -
S 0A
S -
S
S
S
S.
-
$ L2
$
34
Landswe
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
e
S
S -S
-a
-S
s -
s -s
a•s
s -
s -s
.
-s
-s
-
0.1
$
0.1
LpuNacOan
M
1
0
0
0
ro
oa
S 13.0
S. -
$10.0
S 2
S
S.
S •.
S -
S. •
$ -
517S
S •
_
S
•
•
a -
S 42.5
uM r
euxr
0
0
e
S
S.
S -13
-
S 1.613
S -13
a
517.5.
S
S
E.
S
S
$ -
8.3
-
$ 273
very W4
.
Number
0
0
0
01
0
a
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
Fapoure
s
s
s -s
s
s -s
-s
-i.•s.
s
s
a
.
YAMIHelsoudun Flre
Hill
ExOemu
Number
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
&
OA
pmua
-
S .-
S 0.2
S --
-
S. . -
S
6
S 3.5
S
a
E -
S -
S. -
S
S -
S .2.8
E. -
S 8.5
r
0
0
0
0
-0-0-7
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
1
pmuro
; -
S. -
E -
S -
S -
S -
S -
S -
It r'3
-
t -.13
r,S
-
S -
$ -
It -
S -
S -
S 0.1
S. -
S 0.1
Number
0
0
0.
0.
0
.0
0
0
of--
0
0
.0
- 0.0
Espasme
s -s
-s
s
a •'s
•s
-s
-s.
-s.
s -s.
as
s -
-s
..
-
[t] Lose value is asset replacement value in 2006 dolam Value shown Is found as count of aaweta at lbk from the particular hazard tknee hleh.eml unitassat vaWC.
(3J' Grand Total Loss vales Mown may hlolude the some assets counted multiple ulnas for riftranthauinic
' o-w..nuaaxava 5 -70' .
C J
•
SECTIONEW MOULTom NIGUEL RiskAsseSS81C9t
5.12 MOULTON NIGUEL — OBJECTIVE,. GOALS AND ACTIONS
The Moulton Niguel Water District (Moulton Niguel) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps
including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposurelloss estimates to
help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
Moulton Niguel Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.12.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identities administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, 'ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Moulton Niguel's
fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified
mitigation action items.
5.122 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of Moulton Niguel are shown in Table 5.12.3 -1, which presents,the
existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Moulton Niguel Examples
of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances,
subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review,
general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and
real estate disclosure plans.
5.12.3 Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.12.3 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes,
Local
state
Other Level
Jurisdiction
plans)
Authority
Authority
Authority
iy
Comments
(Yesmo)
{Yesmo)
Cities of Allso Viejo, Laguna Hills, .
A. Building code
No
No
Yes
Laguna.Mguel, Mssion Viejo, Dana
Point, O.C.FA, AClMD .
B. Zwdng ordnance
No
No
Yes
Coastal Camrossion,
Local allies
C. Subdvision ordinance or regulations
No
No
Yes
minty of Orange
o� Wd%- oa.assoo 5 -71
SECTIONFIVE MOULTON NIMEL BiSkASSOSSMeat •
Table 5.12:3- 1(continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability.
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes,
Loral
State
Other Level
Jurisdiction
plans)
authority
Authority
Authodty
Commends
(YeslNo )
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
D. Special purpose ordinances (800dplain
County of Orange
management, storm water management,
Army Corps. of Engineers
hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire
No
Yes
Yes
ordinances, hazard setback
Fish &Game - Fed: A State
requirements)
RWOCB
E. Growth management ordinances (also
called Ismart groom' or anti- sprawl
No
No
Yes
Local cities, County of Orange
program)
Local cities, O.C.FA
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
Yes
County of Orange. O.C.TA.
Cal Trans
G. General croomprehensiwo plan
Yes
No
No
MNWD Master Plan
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No
MNWD '
1. An economic development plan
No
No
Yes
Local cities
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
SEMS. NIMS, WEROC, ERP
K A pot( disaster nxxmr plan
No
No
Yes
NIMS '
L. Apos(disaefer recovery ordinanee
No
No
No
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
No
No
:No
N. Waste Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
Water Resources Control Board
5.12A Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Moulton Niguel and their responsibilities related
to hazard mitigation planning and' implementation, as well as existing planning documents and
regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical
capabilities of Moulton Niguel, as shown in Table 5.12.41, provides an identification of the staff
personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation
section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as
planmeadengineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers
trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an
understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills
and scientists familiar with Hazards in the community.
o�+waaw7soc 5-72
•
•
• SECTIONFIVE momtoN NIGUEL Risk Assessment
U]
•
Table 5.12.41
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes/No
Department/Agency and Position
A) Planner(s) or eagineei(s) with knowledge of
land development and land management
practices
Yes
District coordinates with outside consultants
B) Engineer(s) or professionals) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
District coordinates with outside consultants
and/or h%stmcture
C) Planners or Eng'uteer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or human-
Yes
District coordinates with outside consultants
caused hazards
D) Floodplainmanager
LYes
County of Orange
E) Surveyors
Yes
Outside consultant
F) Staff with education or expertise to assess
Yes
County of Ornge
the communlys vulnerabliry.to hazards
G) Personnel sidled inGlSandlorHAZUS
Yes
Outside consultant
H) Scientists familiar vfgt the hazards of the
Yes
County of Orange
community
Emergency manager
Yes
Director of Operations
J) Grantwitets
Yes
Director of Engineering
FK) Lab Tech.
Yes
SOCWA
oowenu vweeae<soo 543
SECTLONFIVE. MouLrow NIGUEL Risk Assessment •
5.12.5 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.12.5- tshows specific financial and budgetary tools available to_ . Moulton Niguel such as
community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for
specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or
developers. for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding
spending in hazard-prone areas.
Table 5.12.51
Fiscal Capability
10W 5 -74
•
•
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/NofDon't Know)
I.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
No
2.
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
&
Autho tytolevytaxesforspedficpurposes
Yes .
4.
Fees torwater, sewer, gas, or elect is service
Yes,
6.
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new
developnertsfhomes
Yes
6.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
7.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes
B.
Incur debt through private activity bonds
No
9.
Withhold spendng in hazard-prone areas
No
10.
Grants
Yes
10W 5 -74
•
•
•SECTIONFIVE MOU . LTON NIGUEL Risk AssessMent
•
5.12.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Table 5.12.6-1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Agency Name
(Mission/Function)
Programs, Plans,
Policies,
Regulations,
Funding, or
Practices
Point of Contact
Name, Address,
Phone, Email
Effect on Loss Reduction'
Comments
Support
'Facilitate
Hinder
City offaguna
MNWD
i. Building Code
Niguel BuV(,ng
x
Department
City of Laguna
2. BwVfftg Code
Niguel BuMng
x
Department
Building Code
City of Nssion Vlejo
Building Department
x
4 Building Code.
City of Also Viejo
Bidding Department
5. Bolding Code
City of Laguna Hills
Bulldng Department
x
6. Building Code
City of Dana Point
Witting Depariment
x
7. Builfflng Code
Orange County Fire
Aulfrority
x
8. Building Code
AOMD
x
9. Zoning Ordnance
Coastal Commission
x
MNWD
i. SubdvWon
Ordnance
Local Cities
x
Z Subdvalon
Ordinance
County of Orange
x
3. Rood Plain
Management
County of Orange
x
4. Rood Plain
Management
Army Corps of
EngEngineers nee
x
77.
Do wnW4)e wsw 5-75
SECTIONFIVE MOULTON MIGUEL BiskAssessmeet
Table 5.12.6 -1 (continued)
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
oftD..mwoaosrsbo 5 -76
•
•
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction`
Agency Name
Policies,
Point of Contact
(Mission/Function)
Regulations,
Name, Address,
Comments
Funding, or
Phone, Email
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
MNWD
5. Flood Plain
Fish 8 Game-
X
Management
Federal
6. Food Plain
Management
Fish & GameState
X
7. Flood Plain
Regional Water
X
Management
Quality Control Board
8. Growth Management
Local Cities
X
9. Growth Management
County of Orange
X
10. Site Plan
Requirements
Local Cates
X
11. Site Plan
County of Orange
X
Requirements.
12 Site Plan
OCTA
X
Requirements
13. Sfte.Plan
Cal Travis
X
Requirements
14. Site Plan
Orange County Fire
X
Requirements
Authority
15. General Plan
MNWD Director of
X
Engineering
16. Capital
MNWD Dhector of
Improvement
Engineedng
X
Wart
17.Economic
Local fides
X
Development Wan
oftD..mwoaosrsbo 5 -76
•
•
• SERIONME MOULTON NIGUEL RiskASSOSSivicii
•
•
Table 512.6 -1 (continued)
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
5.12.7 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Moulton Niguel's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and
goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard .
identification and loss/exposute estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment_ These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision.of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff
and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Frani Bailey, Larry Ballew, Phil Lawler, Ray McDowell,
Tom Stephenson. Once developed, District staff presented them to the Moulton Niguel Board of Directors
for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
bazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Moulton Niguel 's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Dmmd wsoranav M 5=77
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction'
Agency Name
(Mission/Function)
Policies.
Regulations,
Funding, or
Point of Contact
Name, Address,
Phone, Email
Comments
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
MNWD
18. Emergency
Response Plan
SEMS
X
19. Emergency
Response Plan
NIMS
X
20. Emergency
Response Plan
WEROC
X
21. Post Disaster Plan
NIMS
X
22 Grants
MWM Director of
Finance
X
5.12.7 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Moulton Niguel's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and
goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard .
identification and loss/exposute estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment_ These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision.of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff
and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Frani Bailey, Larry Ballew, Phil Lawler, Ray McDowell,
Tom Stephenson. Once developed, District staff presented them to the Moulton Niguel Board of Directors
for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
bazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Moulton Niguel 's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Dmmd wsoranav M 5=77
SEGTIONME MOULTON NIGUEL Risk Assessment
51171 Moulton Niguel WD Goals
The Moulton Niguel Water District has developed the following five goals for their Hazard Mitigation
Plan.
Goal 1: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Disruption
Goal 2: Minimize Water Loss (Ensure Reliable Supply) During Disaster Events
Goal 3: Protect Imported Water Reliability
Goal 4: Protect The Public Water Supply from Contamination Caused by Backtlow or Back-
siphonage in the Event of an Earthquake
Goal 5: No Sewer Spills
5.12.8 Objectives and Actions
OMCI'IVE:
+ GI/01: Improve site security
• GI/02: Improve response time
ACTION&:
• GI /01 /Al: Implement Vulnerability, Risk Assessment recommendations
• GI/01 /A2: Survey and improve site fencing
• GI/01 /A3: Harden facilities
• GI/01 /A4: Install wireless communication throughout the District
• GI/02/Al: Install surveillance equipment.and related facilities
• GI /02/A2: Modify SCADA system
• GI/02 /A3: Keep Emergency Operations Plan up-to -date
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
District constructs site improvements as respective facilities are scheduled for replacement or
refurbishment. Projects are implemented as finding is approved as part of annual budget process or
available through financial assistance programs.
�; mnronossoc 5 -78
0
•
Ll
• SECTIONME MOULTON NIGUEL
OBJECTIVE:
• G2101: Reduce reservoir water losses
• G2/02: Increase available water supplies
ACTIONS:
• G2/01 /Al :
Stiffen reservoir structures for seismic activity
• G2/01 /A2:
Install flexible couplings at reservoir sites
• G210l/A3:
Implement URS study recommendations
• G2/01/A4:
Install seismic valves at critical reservoir sites
• G2102/Al:
Loop water sources where possible
• G2102/A2:
Intertie supply sources where possible
• G2/02/A3:
Construct intetties with neighboring water purveyors .
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: .
6iskAssestnent
Contract for engineering studies for. site-specific recommendations for structural stiffening and flexible
coupling installation. Acquire funding to install seismic valves. Continue to coordinate with neighboring
districts for mterties.
OBJECTIVE:
• . G3101: Obtain an emergency source of imported water.
• G3/02: Increase Emergency Potable Water Storage
AC ONS:
• G3 /01 /Al : Connect JRWD's well field system to Joint Transmission Main
• G3/01/A2: Conned IRWD's well field system to Allen- McColloch Pipeline
• G3 /01 /A3:. Improve interconnections with ETWD and SMWD
• G3/021A 1: Obtain capacity in Upper Chiquita Reservoir System
• G3/021A2: Obtain capacity in East Ortega Reservoir System
• G3/02/A3: Obtain additional capacity in ETWD's R6 Reservoir
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
District, staff will coordinate with neighboring water districts, MWDOC and MET to prioritize and
implement projects on 'a regional basis.
•
o•�rnanmsoaaesuc 5 -79
SECTIONFIVE mOULTON NIOUEL RiskA996soneoi •
OBJECTIVE:
• G4/Ol: Upgrade all potential hazardous potable water services with the required
backflow prevention device to prevent backpressure or back- siphonage that could
contaminate the public water supply.
• G4 /02: Require all single check fire systems in the District to be upgraded to a
Double Check Detector Assembly. Single check fire systems cannot, be tested to
determine if they are working properly. The Double Check Detector Asseriibly can be
tested and requires an annual test to determine if it is functioning properly. The water
quality in fire systems has been proven not safe for human consumption. The District
conducted random tests on fire system water quality and found maximum contaminant
levels for potable water including iron, lead, cadmium, manganese, and total coliform.
ACTIONS:
• G4 /01 /Al: The District is continually monitoring the public water supply and
requiring the installation of backflow prevention devices on all hazardous potable
services. All fire systems shall be upgraded to a Double Check Detector Assembly If the
site is being refurbished. There are approximately 240 single check fire systems in ;our
District with an upgrade cost of about $4.8 million
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Cross Connection Contr ol Department will investigate and determine the degree'of ha and at all • .
potential hazardous sites. These investigations are ongoing and each site will be evaluated to determine
the correct backflow prevention device required for the site.
OBJECTIVE:
• G5/01: Provide backup system for critical facilities
• G5 /02: Protect facilities within flood plain area
ACTIONS:
• G5 /01 /Al: Parallel sewer force mains
• G5/01 /A2: Containment structure for additional response time
• G5 /01 /A3: Replace existing force mains (20 ", 24" Tecite pipe) from Regional Lift Station
• G5 /02/Al : Place protective measures in rivers and creeks
• G5 /02/A2: Install jointless pipelines in all creek crossings and slope easements
IMPLEMENTATION S IRA TEGY.•
District staff would coordinate with outside consultant to prioritize existing facilities that would be lost or
damaged from flooding or earthquakes.
•
I= 0..M so"WW 5 -80
SEETIONFIVE MOULTON NIGUEL
Table 5.12 -1 Moulton Niguel Loan 916=HonTsble
AlskAssmmsnt
FlarerdT a
Nam•
W8T
RFS
WTP
PS
PRS
EIT
EC
AOY
{,S
WELL
_
JFRS-RIETJ
WWTP•
MYTP•
Total Lon
ePannewt Gas
>
t0A
I 70A
I JOA
2.0
02
.WWTP
DIENER
OL•N PS
PP
SOCWA
0080
LSAC$p
PWL
WWL
Vsba SM
1 0,9
1 OA
0.0
OA
I SA
1 1S
25.0 ::
359
1 120
1 120
70A
25OLO
02
6MOmM
Nwnher
- 11
0
0
7
0
4
1
..
lb0eata
Eapawro
. A
0'
0
0
0
0
0
$143.0
S SOD
$ -
$20.0
$ •
$ 2.1
S 3.0
S
S 1,8
$.. 5.0
S -
f
$
$
18
1
1
0
8
4
'2
-
$
$
f -
f 235.3
.1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
T-S
0.0
$234.0
$ 30.0
f -
$32A
S -
S 1A
$ 2.4
$ BA
$ 52
$ 10.0
$ -
S -
S -
$
S
S
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
-
$
$
f 982.3
0
0p
0
0
0
OA
Flood
Number
0
1
0
S
S
$ . -
$ -
S "
S
$
i.
S
S
i
S
S
100
EnpnBS
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
$ •
$ 30.0
S -
$ -is
-
S'0.3
f -
$
S -
f
$ -
S -
$
S
$
Number
0
10
0
0
0
1
0
1
.5.0
-
-
-
f
f
$
$ 3.5
f
500
Fxpoauro
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
,p
S -$
-f
-.S
"
-$
-
$0.8.5..
-f0.4S
-;'
".$
f -f
LandrOG
Number
1
.1
12
0
1
i
0
4
. -f
-f
-
S -
S -$
2.2
S -
E. 32
5nwuro
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
.2
0A
'
H
$230.0
S'30.0
S -
$24.0
'$ -
S 03
$ 0.8
S -
$ 1.0
$ 5.0
S
$ -,
S •
f
$
LlquNaWOa
Number
0
0
2
7
-
-
$
f 25.2
E -
f 320.7
MoOe
&po6we
11
0
'01
0
0
0.
0.
S 13A"
f 90.0
$
f 4.0
f -
f -
f 1.2
f 9.0
f'O.S
S 5.0
S -
f -
$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
f -
f' -
f.' -
f -
f S7A
Hbh
pwro
,0
0
ks-
0
0
0
0.0
0.
S
$
$ ".f
"f
$ <
$
$ !."
f -
5
$
E
f.
5 -
i -'f
�i -
5
E
7hryHb
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0$
"
_ "
f
E
f
f�
S
1
i
f.
MIgaASfrvcNn Pin
Mnnher
2
0
0.
2
0.3
0
0
i -
S
,.
0
0
0
0
01
0.
0
8.
OA
28A
5 -
S •
S 20
S -
S 0.3
$ . 1.2.
$ -
S 12
-
"
i
-
f .,
S
S
Number
0
1
0
0.
0
0
.
$
S .:
i 8.1
S
S 98.8
Xb
Eapwuro
-
.
0
0
0
'. . 0
p
.
5 28.0
S
It
S 2.0
S .
S
S
S
S
.
S
S 1l9
S
S 20.7 .
Extram
PAPm
(Sul
. •
6
S .
.
S. 0.21$
-
S 0.2
Ina was vows rs asset replacement value in 2108 dollars. Value shown b found on count of niab at dik from the PiKkulacharird Omes h1 °h.eM unit asst value
I2] Opal Total Loss value shown may Include Bee Boma wets counted multiple tines for dif Brent hazards.
Ulm
aamna t�i�� I a L�arep 1'
SECTIONME
MWDOC
5.13 MWDOC —OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
Risk Assessment
Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps
including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure /loss estimates to
help identify the.,top hazards threatening their jurisdiction.. Since MWDOC is a regional agency, its
specific goals and objectives were included, in Section 5.3. See Section 4 for additional details on the
hazard risks.
The MWDOC Regional Loss Assessment Tables are located at the end of Section 5 (the tables really
pertain to losses by MET or for regional jointly owned facilities).
5.13.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation'planning. The:second part of the Assessment provides MWDOC's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5.13:2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of MWDOC are shown: in Table 5.13.3 -1, which presents the
existing, ordinances and vodes that affect the physical or built environment of MWDOC. Examples of
legal and/or" regulatory.. capabilities can include: the MWDOC's building codes; zoning ordinances,
subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinance s growth management ordinances, site plan review,
general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and
real estate disclosure plans.
5.13.3 Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.13.3 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
oormartw oeas�so 5 -82
•
•
Local
State
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
urisdiction
Authority
Comments
(YesMo)
o
(YesM)
(YesMo)
A. BuUng Code
Yes; ..
Yes
Office Bdldng -qty
B. Zoning Ordnance
No
No
No
C. Subdivision ordinance or regdations '
NA
NA
NA
D. Special purpose ordinances (higside or
steep slope ordinances, fire ortl moss,
Yes
Yes
Cities, OCFD, USFWS, CDFG
hazard setback uaemerds
oormartw oeas�so 5 -82
•
•
•
SECTIONFIVE
MWDOC
Table 513.34 (continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Risk Assessment
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Local
Authority
(Yes/No)
State
Authority
(YeslNO)
Other Level
ansrGetl°
Authority
(Yes/No)
Comments
E. Growth management ordinances (also
called 'smart growth ' oranti- sprawl
NA
NA
NA
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
Yes
OCFA, (Mes
G. General or comprehensive plan Master
Plan
Yes
No
No
Urban Water Management: Plan; master
plans of the MWDOC member agendm
MET Integrated Resources Plan.
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No
I.. An economic development plan .
NA
NA
NA
I An emergency response pan
Yes
Yes
Yes
SEMS, NIMS, WEROC, OA, MET
IC A post4saster recovery pan
Yes
Yes
Yes .
NIMS
L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance
No
No
No
Cities, County, GES; FEMA
M. Real estate disclosure req dvements
NA
NA
NA
N. Material Handling
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cities
a DAMS
Yes
Yes
DODs & RWQCB
P. VA & 9RP
Yes
Yes
USEPA & OES
Q. Title 17 & 22
Yes
Yes
CA-DHS
R. Wastewater
Yes
Yes
CRWQCB
S. Air Quality
Yes.
Yes
SCAQMD
T. Safety
Yes
Yes
CWOsha
5.13.4 Administrative and Technical. Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in MWDOC and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the - community. The administrative and technical capabilities of
MWDOC, as shown in Table 5.13A-I,. provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department
resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific
resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such .as planners/engineers with
knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade hazards, fioodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with
hazards in the community.
F) 711
Do .ti soaomm 5 -83
SECTIONME MWDOC Risk ASSessmeM •
Table 5.13.41
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes/No
DeparbnenVAgency and Position
A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with ImoWedge of
land development and land management
Practices
Yes
Professional staff plus coordination via outside consultants
B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
Professional staff plus coordination via outside consultants
and/or infrastructure
C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding
Yes
Professional staff plus coordination via outside consultants
of natural and/or human - caused hazards
D. Floodplain manager
Yes
County of Orange
E Surveyors
Yes
Outside consultants
F. Stag with.education or else to assess the
Yes
Professional staff plus coordination As outside .
community's vulnerability to hazards
consultants; County of Orange
G. Personnel sidlledin GIS and%or HAZUS
Yes
Outside consultants
H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the
Yes
Professional staff plus coordination via outside
community
consultants; County of Orange
I. Emergency.manager
Yes
Director of the Water Emergency Response O a ftwon
of Orange County (WEROC)
J. Grant writers
Yes
Professional staff plus coordination via outside consultants.
K Lab Tech.
Yes
Outside entities.
ooa.�mrtnsa+asysoc 5 -94
•
•
0
•
•
SECTIONFIVE
5.13.5 Fiscal Capability
u 7, i, = ,
Risk Assessment
Table 5.13.5 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to MWDOC such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
Table 5.13.5 -1
Fiscal Capability
oamdn,�aonastsoc 5 -85
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/No/Don t Know)
A.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
No
B.
Capital Improvements project funding
Yes
C.
Aulhorirytokyy taxes for specific pulposes
No
D.
Fees for.v+ater, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
E.
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new
developmentslhomes
Yes
F.
Incur' debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
G.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes
H.
Incur debt through private activo bonds
No
I.
Withhold spending In hazard -prone areas
No
J.
Grams
Yes
oamdn,�aonastsoc 5 -85
SECTIONFIVE
MWDOC
5.13.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Risk Wes, %meat
Listed below are MWDOC's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, MWDOC has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment.findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessmenL These prbliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including MWDOC's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, MWDOC representativeg met to specifically discuss these
hazard-related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were
Kelly Hubbard, Lee Jacobi, Karl Seckel, Michelle Tuchman, Heather Fong, and Keith Lyon. Once
developed, MWDOC staff presented them to the MWDOC Board of Directors for their approval,
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identifieation/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections . present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by MWDOC's LPG in conjunction with the.
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Table 5.13.6 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
msooa.a«mssocaasoa 5 -86
E
•
Pro grams, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction_
Agency Name
(Mission/Function)
Polities,
Regulations,
Title
Address
1.
Comments
Funding, or
Phone Contact
support
Facll tate
Hinder
Practices
Kad SedW
1. Planning
X
X
Assistant General Manager
Kelly Hubbard
MWDOC
2 WEROC
WEROC Programs'
X
X
Coordinator
Urban Water
Matt Stone
Management Plan
Associate Goal Manager
X
X
msooa.a«mssocaasoa 5 -86
E
•
CI
: •
•
$ECTIONFIVE nnw®oc RISkA$sessibedt
5.13.7 MWDOC Goals
Five major goals for MWDOC were listed in Section 5.3. The only assets.specifically owned by
MWDOC include its administrative office building and it has contents located in two Emergency
Operations Centers, which it leases from other agencies.
MWDOC's main goals are to continuing staffmg WEROC for the benefit of the water and
wastewater entities in the County and to coordinate on regional planning efforts between MET
and Orange County and to coordinate among the 28 member agencies it has in Orange County on
planning and water resources activities.
5.13.8 Objectives and Actions
A number of Objectives and Actions were included in Section 5.3.
om ,«msocwuco 5 -57
SEOTIONFNE Mwooc. Mknssassmw
Table 513.1 MWDOC Loo 6admadon Table
Xamd a
W nmM
bew
a
WRT
134'
RSS
30.0
WTP
f0A
PS
7A
PRS
03
EY
OS
SC
0A
ADM
3A
L8.
OA
WWTP
53
WE1L
f3
WEMFA
150.0
OC-tt PB
35A
PRSf7ET
1tA
PP
12.0
WWTP
+TP'
.303
-
OCSD
750.0
LS.00SD
t0A
PWL.
1A
WWL
03
Tanl Lon
valuanl3X
EaMquab
Mad!
Num r
6p0eme
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
...
OA
X
M
NUM
Eapobm
s •
0
s -13
0
-
$
0
s -
0
s -
s -
0
1 3A
Z
s -
0
s -
s -
0
3 .. -
o
s -
S -
s -
0
s
0
-
0
s -
S
0A
$
A
3,0
Eztre
N her
6poam,
s -
0
S -
0
s
s -
s -
0
s -$
0
.
=
1 8.0
0
1
-,
0
s .-
s
0
s -
0
s -
s
0
-
0
s
0
-
0
s -
-
i -
0
S 8.0
F1n0
100
r
MI;
s
0
s -
s -
E -
0
s -
0
s -IS
-
s -
/
.S -
s -
s -
S-
0
s . -.
s -
s -
_ 0
i -
s
S -
s-
.0
i-
i
is
500
-
0
s
0
s -
0
E -
0
s -
0
s •
0
$ -
0
3 3.01S
0
0
s -
S -
0
s -
0
1 -
1 -1$
0
-is
0
0
-
0
s -
S
0.0
i -
A
S 3.0
Fspaeun
r
0
0
.0
0
0-
s -.
s -
s.
0
s -
0
s -
0
-
0
s-
S
0
s -
0
s
0
�-
i
0.0
Leda Ya
PaVAe'
M
bar
s •
0
s -
0
s -
s -
s •
3 -
0
s -
1 3.o
s -
0
s.
-
0
-
0
s
s. •
. 0
s -
0
s_ -
S -
0
-
S --
,0
i -
i -. 3.0
uoedan
MuOxan
EVoame
r
s -
s -
0
S -
0
3 -
s -
s -
5 •
3 3A
1
s -
s
0
s -
f -
0
s -
0
s -
s -
3 -
p
s --
S
-
S -
0A
i 3.0
Xa
Very Xf
Number
EapOgaa
3 •
o
s -
0
s -
s -
0
s •
0
s, -
0
$ -
1 3.0
0
1 -
0
s -.
0
3 -
0
s -
0
-
0
s_.
0
s -
0
s -
0
s . •.
0
s -
0
S
0A
0.0
3.0
MllleiStmalun Fin
LN
M
Number
Eaponm
s -
0
s -
0
$ -
0
s •
01
S •
0
$ -
0
$ -
0
s r
01
s -
0
'S -
0-
$ -
ol
-
0
s -
0
s -
0
s -is
ol
0
-
0
s -
S -
OA
i .
X'
Number
s
s.
0
0
0
s
0
s
s
00
s
Exposure
Extrome
M
Number
s
3
0
0
$ .-3
.
0
-.s
-
s -s.
-
s •
.
0
-s
-
8
OA -
i
f3ml
S -
s
s-
S
$
Gre and
M Loss virus Is "set replenment value lu1008 tl"me t Value ahawe h found n courtr different at zak from Ore particular hazard Omao hluh -end unit asset value.
W Gnntl Tobl Loss value shown may Include On same enm counted muMpb tknea br dffbnnt hasertls.
. m.�. «nwawmuoo 5-88
• NECflONFIVE NEWPORT BEACH SiskAssessment
5.14 NEWPORT BEACH — OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
The City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including
detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposureAoss estimates to help identify
the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
Newport Beach Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.14.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Newport Beach's
fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified
mitigation action items.
5.14.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory. capabilities' of Newport Beach are shown W Table 5.14.3 -1, which presents the
• existing. ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Newport Beach. Examples
of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes; zoning ordinances,
subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review,
general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and
real estate disclosure plans.
5.14.3 Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.14.3 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
U]
D...tiw d,omw 5 -89
Local
state
Mer Level
Regulatory,Toob (ordinances, codes, plans)
Auhority
Authority
Jurisdiction
Comments
Memo)
(yesmo)
(Yesmo)
City Budding Dept
A. Buldng code
Yes
Yes
Yes
City Code & WQ Enforcement
QMD (Air Quality)
D. Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
No
aPlanning ��
astal Carturusslon
E. Subdivision ordinance or regdadpris
Yes
No
Yes
ny Budding &Planning Depts.
Andy of Orange
F. Special purpose ord'mances . (floodplair
Yes
Yes
Yes
QC a
ty Qrange
D...tiw d,omw 5 -89
SECTIQNFIVE NEWPORT BEACH R!SkASMSSMest •
ow, �nvso�-0ssoo 5 -90
•
CJ
Laval
Slats
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Jurisdictio n
Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(YeslNo)
(Yes1No)
management, stomreuater management
rmy Corps of Engineers
Maids or steep slope ordinances, wildk
Fish & Game — Fed & State
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
MFG
Plan
G. Growth management ordinances (also
'smart
Yes
Yes
No
VstoGoefneral
Orange
growth' or anti-spy Programs)
H. Site plat review req<riremwrts
Yes
No
No
dy Melds.
1. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
No
No
fly's General Plan
J. A ceplatimprovements plan
Yes
No
'fly's GP for Water &
astewater .
K An economic development plan
Yes
No
No
My's General Plan
IMS, SEMS
L. An emergency response plan
Yes
No
Yes
NEROC
ity EOC
M. Apost- disaster recovery plan
Yes
No
Yes
SIMS
N. Apost- disaster recovery onlinartce
No
Yes
Yes
County ofOrange
fate of Ca6fomia
ity Ordinance
0. Real estate disclosure requirements
Yes
Yes
No
late Real Estate Board .
ax Assessor
P. Security Issues
Yes
Yes
No
UnerablIty Assessment
Q. Title 22
Yes
Yes
Yes
unty Health Services
SEPA
R. Portable Generators
Yes
Yes
Yes
kQMD
S. Dam safety
No
Yes
Yes
Xvision of Man Safety
T. Waste Discharge Requirements
Yes
Yes
Yes
3WRCB
U. NIMS
Yes
Yes
Yes
V. Safety
Yes
Yes
No
al OSHA
U. Water Qualdy
Yes
Yes
Yes
A MHS
SEPA
V. . Waste Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
3 3tale Water Resources Control
and
ow, �nvso�-0ssoo 5 -90
•
CJ
• SECTIONFIVE NEWPORT BEACH RiskAssessmiedt
•
I�
u
5.14.4 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The Following is a summary of existing departments in Newport Beach and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the .community. The administrative and technical capabilities of
Newport Beach, as shown in Table 5.14.4 -1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and
department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan.
Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with
knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with'
hazards in the community.
Table 5.14.4 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
SfaffiPersonnel Resources
YesMo
DepartmemlAgency and Position
A. Planners) or a ngdneer(s) with bvwl ge of
City Public Works Dept. — Engineers
land development and land management
Yes
City Planning Dept — Planners
practices
City likes outside contractors as needed'
S. Engineer(s) or professdonai(s) trained in
qty Building bept — Plan Checkers & Inspectors
construction practices related to buildings
and/or Infrastructure
Yes
City Public Works Dept. — Engineers & Inspe*m
C. Planners or Englnoer(s) with an understanding
Yes
Contractors or Staiaederal Employees
of natural and/or human-caused hazards
F. Flo odpWp manager
Yes
County of Orange
G. Surveyors
Yes
Pubic Works — Surveyor
City hires outside contractors as needed
City Police, Fire, Pubic Works, Ultifities & General Services
H. Staff with education or eVedise to assess the
Yes
Dept stag
County of Orange
communiyrs vulnerability to hazards
WEROC staff .
City hires outsde omhadm as needed
City Pubic Works & MIS staff
I. Personnel stalled in GIS andlor HAZUS
Yes
Center for Darnographtc Research, CSUF
City hires outside contractor's as needed
J. Scientists famnYar with the hazards of the
Yes
County of Orange
Cal Tech, other CdlogesNniversities
community
Stale/Federal Employees
lum 5 -91
SECTIONFWE NEWPORT BEACH RIAASS09MIO' BI •
Stafffpersonnel Resources
YeslNo
Department/Agencyand Position
City ManagedPrimary NIMS Responder
K Emergency manager
Yes
Other designated staff dependent on type of emergency
and availability
Fire or Police Chief — as necessary
Various City staff — Public Works, Planning, City Managers
L.,. Grant writers
Yes
Office, Utilities Dept. .
City hires outside contractors as needed
OCWD
M. Lab Testing
No
Clinical Labs of San Bemadno
Other licensed labs as deemed necessary
is
J
• SECTIONFIVE NEWPORT BEACH RISkASSessment
•
i •
5.14.5 Fiscal Capability
Table 5 .14.5- lshows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Newport Beach such as
community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for
specific purposes; fees, for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact: fees for homebuyers or
developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding
spending in hazard -prone areas.
Table 5.14.5 -1
Fiscal Capability
oow�aunaoaaasbcs 5 -93
Finandal Resources
.
Accessible or E6gibte to Use
.... (YesWolDon4 Know) :. .
A)
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Yes
B)
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
C)
Authority to lever taxes for specific purposes
Yes (Prop 218 requires vote of people)
D)
Fees for water, sewer; gas, or electric service
Yes, Water & Sewer'
E)
Impact fees for homebuyers or deveiopers,for new
developmerim mes
Yes, Connection &' Pena Fees.,
F)
Incur debt through general obigaton bonds '
No (takes vote of pub8c)'
G)
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Revenue Bonds (supported by revenue
stream)
N)
Incur debt through private acivIIy bonds
private
Yes (Infrastructure to benefit companies must have greater pudic benefit)
1)
Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas
Unknown'
oow�aunaoaaasbcs 5 -93
SECTIUNFIVE NEWPORT BEACH RIAbsessment •
5.14.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
5.14.6.1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Newport Beach's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and
gam•
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and.loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and, reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- rehtted goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The LPG' members were Tim Deutsh," Terressa Moritz, and George Murdoch Once
developed, City staff presented them to the Newport Beach City Council for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to,citizerds, and to receive public input At these meetings; specific consideration was given to
hazard identificationtprofiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The followu g seo ions present the . •
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Newport Beach's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Table 5.14.6.1 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment'
Agency Name
- (MissionlFunction)
Programs, Plans, Policies,
Regulations, Funding, or
Point of Contact Name,
Address, Phone, Email
Effect on Loss Reduction'
Comments
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
City of Newport
Mpke Sinaced
Beach (Water)
Utilities Engineer
3300 Newport Blvd.
1. Master Plan
(949) 6443311
X
X
Newport Beach, CA
msinaco i @dlynewport-
92658
beach.ca.us
tugke Sinawd
Utilities Engineer
2. CIP
(949) 644.3311
X
X
msinacod@dty.newpod-
tynewpod-
beach.ca.us
beach.ca.us
•
oarc aoaoasu+ 5 -94
• SECTIONFIVE mEwpoRT i3EAcH. HISRASSOSiMent
•
Agency Name
Programs, Plans, Policies.
Point of Contact Nanoe,
Effiect on Loss Reduction*
Comments
(Misslon/Function)
Regulations, Funding, or
Address, Phone, Emall
Practices
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Pete Antista
3. Urban Water
Utftes Director
Management Plan
(949) 6443011
x
x
panfista@cItynewpoit-
beachca.us
Pete Ardista
Ulliffles Director
4. Master Fee Resolution
(949) 644-3011
x
x
pardisVcItynewpoet-
beadi.caus
Pets AnUsta
Utilities Director
5. Municipal Code
(949) 644-3011
x
x
panVsV*.newporl-
beachxaus
Mike sbacarl
Uffilies Engineer
1. Master Plan
(949) 644-3311
x
x
msmacofl@*.nev4)od-
beach.ca.us
Oka Sinaccri
Uffifies Engineer
2. CIP
(949) 644.3311
x
x
mslnacod@cltynewport-
beachxa:us
City of Newport
Ed Burt
Beach (Sew)
Operations Manager
3300 Newport Blvd.
Waste Discharge Order
(949) 718.3402
x
x
RWQCB
Newport Beach, CA
eburtg*.newpcd-
92658
heach.ca.us
Pete AnGsta
Uffirtles Director
4.Master Fee Resolution
(949) 644-3011
x
x
paddat0city.newport-
beach.mus
Pete Anft
Utilities Director
5. Municipal, Code
(949) 644-3011
x
x
beach.ca.us
FT17
D..."*4awsor 5-95
SECTIORMW NEWPORT BEACH RiskAssessinent •
5.14.6.2 City of Newport Beach Goals
Newport Beach has developed the following seven goals for their Hazard Mitigation PIan.
Goal 1. Promote disaster - resistant. development and construction of utilities
facilitiestinfrastructure.
Goal 2. Promote public understanding, support and demand for effective hazard
mitigation.
Goal 3. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less
vulnerable to hazards (Vulnerability Assessment).
Goal 4. Improve coordination and communication with federal, state, and local .
governments.
Goal 5. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly
people and critical facilities/infrastructure due to dam failure
Goal 6. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly
people and critical facildies(nfrastructure due to natural disasters (earthquakes,
Severe Weather & High Tides, Tsunami's and Structural FireAMIdfires).
Goal 7. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly •
people and critical facilitiesfcnfrastructure due to human caused hazards.
Goal 1. Promote disaster - resistant future development. .
Objective 1.A Implement a program of continued hazard assessment.
Action 1.A.1 Implement hazard assessment in an area prior to utilities
facilities/infrastructure.
Goal 2. Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard
mitigation.
Objective 2.A Educate the public to increase awareness of hazards and opportunities for
mitigation actions.
Action 2A.1 Encourage public participation and input.
0011 3. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously
become less vulnerable to hazards (Vulnerability assessment).
Objective 3A Involve officials in the Mitigation Plan and Activities
Action 3.A.1 Provide ongoing information on the benefits of mitigation
IF-1
L J
Ono ,raazmm 5 -96
• SE0110NME NEWPORT BEACH RiskASsesSlffeffY
Objective 33 Develop hazard mitigation plan and implement plan.
Action 3.13.1 Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations
Action 3.13.2 Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate hazards
Objective 3.0 Continue to create and update Mitigation Plans
Action 3.C.1 Continued risk assessment as areas experience change, and mitigation of
these risks
Goal 4. Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with
federal, state, and local governments.
Objective 4.A Improve the capability and efficiency of administering pre - and post - disaster
mitigation.
Action 4.A.1 Dedicate resources to mitigation
Action 4.A.2 Continue to participate in mitigation scenarios (drills).
Goal 6. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets,
• . particularly people and critical facilities/infrastructure due to dam
failure.
Objective 5.A Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate dam failure (California
Department of Water Resources).
Action 5.A.1 Annual DSOD Inspection
Action 5.A.2 Make recommended upgradestiimprovements
Action 5.A.3 Review and/or update dam seismic study as needed
Goal 6. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets,
particularly people and critical facilitieslinfrastructure due to natural
disasters (Earthquakes, Severe Weather & High Tides, Tsunami's and
Structural Firefildfires).
Objective 6.A Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage
and loss.
Action 6.A.1 Develop training protocols
Action 6.A.2 Develop a program to implement back up utility systems, maintenance and.
testing protocols.
•
iRi o�,�«a,�eoaasoo 5 -97
SECTIONFNE NEWPORT BEACH RiskASSeSsMent •
Goal. 7.
Reduce the possibility of damage and losses. to existing assets,
particularly people, critical facilitiesfinfrastructure, due to human
caused hazards.
Objective 7.A
Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage
and losses due to human - caused hazards.
Action 7.A.1
Draft a full risk assessment of possible human caused hazards
Action 7.A.2
Provide education for administrative personnel and other decision makers on
the possibility of human caused hazards.
Action 7.A.3
Identify the locations of hazardous materials that could negatively impact the
operations and maintenance of all utilities facilitieslnfrastructure.
•
•
will 5 -98
SNTIDBFIVE NEWPORT BEACH Rlsk Assessment
Table 5.141 Newport Use rid, don Table
Hseud Da
pwma'
WST
RU VAP
PS
PRS
.W. SC 'ADM
LS. WWTP
WELL
OIEM
OCMPS
PRS.MLT
WWTP-
PP SOMA
W1 M
OCID
LS-MD
PWL
WVIL
TeW Loa
Value 1Se
D anment
Earthquake
Made
a
Number
t0A
0
50.0 10.0
0
2.0
0
U OA 0A SO
019 0 0
. $A SA
0 9
d 450.0
0 0
. SEA
12A
EMI
VIA 00.0
0
210.0 10.0 1A
0 0 A
0.5
0
poeuro
E_
9
E
E
E
E
E.•
'S -
S r.i
•.
E •
E ..
S -
E
E
E
E -
E
E
E
Hg
Numker
2
1
0
.5
43
13
8
16
0
'. 2
0
9
0
0
01.8
37.3
Eepoturo
E 28A
E 30A
E
$10A
S, OA
E 3,9
3 3.8
E 3.0
E B.t
.E � -
E 7A
�S -IS
'•
E
E
S -
S
E 1.8
S. 18.61111
178.7
Eabe
Number
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
2.
Eaposuro
M
E -E
-E.
E
E •.E
" -S
•5.•5134'
•.S
-
S •E
-E
-E
-E
•E
3.34
1.1E
6.6
need
100
500
Number
0
0
1
0
0
9
0
1
0
0
1.
Fxpmwa
E
E 30.0
E '•
E •
E 0.2
E -
E -
E -
E 3.8
E -
E 3.6
E -
E-
E
-
.S -
E •
E •
.
E 10.0
E 4.8
E 52.1
Number
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
O
... 1
0
9
0
0
6.
4.
Fxpme
M
E -
E
E
E r
E -
3
E -
E
E
E
E 3.8
E -
4
f
E -
$'
E
E -
E' SA
E 2.2
E. 11R
LUdrlMe
ber
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
2.8
EapoeDro
E
E
E
E '-
E -
E -is
09
E -
E •�
$ -
E •.
; -
'E
E ..
S� -
E -
E 2.1
E to
E 4.3
Llquit od"
Hb
Number
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
A
Eapoeuro
S -
E
E:
E -
E 1.2
E -
E
E
E
E -
E
S
E
E
E -
E
E
E
1.8
Numhar -
$A$
0
0
0
0
'B .B
0•
Eepauro
E
E
E •
9 •
-
S -
E OA
E
3 7A.
E. -
�S .. -
E
S r
E -
E.
eA
E 0.1
E 14.3
Veryft
Number
0
0
0
0
11
0
- 0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.0
S -
E
E
9
E
S.•
S 4A
4
r.
E
E-
9 -
E
E -
E
E
to
E
E 8.3
MWOUStruelam Fin
Hig
Number
0
1
0
0
3
0
a
0
2
0
0
0
9
0
0
C
3.3
6.9
6paeure
M
E
S 30.0
E -
S
S O.S
E -
-
S
S
8
S 0.8
E .:.
E,
E c.
E ...
E'
E -.
E
S 3.3
S 2.9
E 37A
Number
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
A
Etpaure
M
E •
E
E
E •
50.2
E •
S -
.S
S .
5.. -
S.
$ ,
E
E •
E -
E -
E -
$ -
E 0.1
E 0.3
E 0.6
Numhnr
0
0
0
0
'-
0
0
0
0
OA
A
Expauro
E-
S
E
3.. -
E.
E -
E. -
E -
'S -
E -
E
[11 Loan value is asset repfeesmenlvalue M 200E doltam. Value shown Is found as count ofaasats at risk from the paitfeular hoard Nmea hiohbnd unit asset vahm.
M Gmnd Total Loss value shown may Include Om some assets counted multiple tines for different haiamfe. '
Mt$ m=..wa ws 5.99
amna v,M I
SECTION FIVE
OCSD
5.15 OCSD — OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND ACTIONS
Risk Assessmoot
Orange Coumy Sanitation District reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed
critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposurelloss estimates to help identify the top
hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
OCSD Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.15.1 Capability Assessment
OCSD is currently identifying their capabilities.
The LPG identified current capabilities available for' implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of.the. Assessment- provides OCSD's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5415.2 Existing Institutions, Plans; Policies and Ordinances '
The legal and regulatory capabilities of OCSD are shown in Table 5.15.2 -1, which presents the existing
ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of OCSD. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include: the OCSD's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans.
n
U
•
Table S1S2 -1
at and Regulatory Ca bil'
Local
State
OlherLevel
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, pans)
Authority -
Jurisdktlon
comments
(Yesmo)
(YeslNo)
Audwft
(Yesmo)
Local cities
O.C.FA
A. Building code
No
Yes
Yes
A.QKD. .
Some Exceptions Apply
HCA <State/County
B. Zoning ordinance
No
No
Yes
Coastal Conmission
o�e�x,vowasysor;5 -104
0
•
•
SECTIONFIVE
ocso
RISkASSessment
Table 5.15.2 -1
Legal and RegulatorUy Ca abili
Local
state
Other Level
Regulatory Tools ( ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Jurisdiction
Commends
(YdwMo)
(YeslNo)
(Yesiito)
C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations
No
No
Yes
Local cities
County of Orange
County of Orange -
D. Special purpose ordinances (goodplain
Amry Corps of Engineers
management, storm water
USFWSICDFG
management, hillside or steep slope
No
Yes
Yes
Regional Water Quality Control Board
ordinances, w1d a ordinances, hid
SAWPA
setback requirements)
OCFA
CDFf Forest Service
E Growth management ordinances (also
Local cities
called - smartgroxtit' oran"prawl
No
No
No
County of Orange
programs)
OCFA
Lail cities
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
No
County of Orange
OCFA
Permits
G. General orccirgxehensive plan
No
No
No
RWQCB
H. A capital Improvements; plan
Yes
No
No
Habitat Protection
LAFCO
I. An economic development plan
No
No
No
SEMS
I An emergency response plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
NIMS
WEROC
K A post- disaster recovery plan
No
No
Yes
NIMS
L. A post-ftester recovery law
No
No
No
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
No
No
No
N. Waste Discharge Requirement.
No
Yes
No
State Water Resource Control Board
5.15.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in OCSD and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The admitnistrative and technical capabilities of OCSD, as
M.MMIS- a-oeiaoo5 -101
5ECT19NME
OCSD
RISkAssessmenN
shown in Table 5.15.3 -1, provides an identification of the staf& personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as plannerstengineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills I and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
Table 5.15.3 -2
Administrative and. Technical Capacity
StaffiPersonnel Resources
Y"No
DepaznneM/Agencyand Position
A. Planner(s) or engfneer(s) with knowledge of
land development and land management
practices
Yes
District coordinates with outside consultants
B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
Distdd wordmmes with outside consultants
construction practices reed In buildings
Yes
Infiouse and Consultants
and /or infrastructure
Engineering Department
C. Planners or Engineers) with in understanding
Yes
District coordinates with outside consultants
of natural and/or humarKed hazards
aus
Consultant with VA & ERP
D. Floodpialn manager
Yes
County of Orange
I- Surveyors
Yes
Outside consultant
F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the
Yes
County of Orange- WEROC
commun!Vs wlnerabi ity to hazards
G. Personnel sidled in GIS ardor HAZUS
Yes
Outside Consultant
County
H. Scientists familar with the hazards of the
Yes
CollegeskIniversity
Regional
community
Caltceh
USGS
I. Emergency manager
Yes
Director of Operations
RWSafety Department
J. Grant waiters
No
K .Other -Lab Staff / Specialist
Yes
Internal
! 0w, eoa MDG5-102
•
•
0
r-1
L
(0
SECTIONFIVE
5.15.4 Fiscal Capability
OCSD
Risk ftsessmeat
Table 5.15.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to OCSD such as .community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding;. authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
5.15.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are OCSD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the OCSD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in find= development of these goals and .
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the OCSD's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. in addition, OCSD representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The LPG members were Jim Matte and George Rivera. Once developed, OCSD staff
presented them to the OCSD Board of Directors for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
MI
o�.�an, sm os socS -lfi3
Table 5.15.4-
Fiscal Canability
Finandal Resources
Accessible or E99ible to Use
,(YeslNot)on4Knox) .
A.
Commu* Devebpn Block Grants (CDBG)
No
B.
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
C.
Audmity to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
D.
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
E.
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developmentslhomes
No
F.
Incur debt through general obfiga6on bonds
No
G.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
No
H.
Incur debt through private acd* bonds
No
I.
Wlhhold spending in hazanlprone areas
No
J.
Grants
Yes
5.15.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are OCSD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the OCSD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in find= development of these goals and .
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the OCSD's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. in addition, OCSD representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The LPG members were Jim Matte and George Rivera. Once developed, OCSD staff
presented them to the OCSD Board of Directors for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
MI
o�.�an, sm os socS -lfi3
SECTIONFIVE OCSD Risk ASSIOSSIO of •
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by OCSD's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard
Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
5.75.6 OCSD MITIGATION GOALS.AND OBJECTIVES
OCSD reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information
and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their
jurisdiction. Since OCSD is a regional agency providing the underlying support for a number of the
agencies, the overall goals and objectives for the wastewater functions were included in the regional
Section 5.4. See Section 4 for additional details on the hazards.
The OCSD Loss Assessment Table follows.
•
n��vis3.oeaasoo5 -iO4
0
SECTiONFTVE ocsD
Table 5.15-1 OCSD Loos Wmatiam Table
Risk Asmsment
[11 Lop value Is asset replacement value In 2006 d01111m. Value shown Is towel as oewn of assets It trom the particular hazard limas h1oh4yul unit asset value.
[2] Grand Total Loss value shown may Include the same assets counted multiple Mmes for dUhrant hazards.
Sara
07
RES
WTP
PS PRS' EIS Se
ADM LS WOM
.WELL DINER
OC48 PS
PRWE5
WWSP•
PP SCCWA
WWI?,
CCSD LS-OCSD
.FWL�
WWL
Tobllon
Yalu r SLI
moat a
EtArgmko -
MOderata
v
ber
13A
0
504 '104 2A 0.2 OA - OA 3A .OA SA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .' 0. 0..-
OA. 2SOA SOA Ito
10 0 - 0 0
- ILO "A
-0 0
250A too
1
to
- .0
0.5
- 287.0
-
pmwe
S -
6'
-
$- --
E �-
3. -
'E" --
.f
f
f
f "
-.
f_..' .-
f -
t. _
S. -
S -.
�$. 10A
.
S. -
S 103.7
S /5J.7
too
hhiMef
0
0
0
0
-' 0
1
0-
0
0
- 0"
. -'0
0
-. 2
9
0.0
261A
En00oyro
S •
f -
f ' -
f •
'f •:
f , -I$
.•
f. A
f -
S
-S, -
f -
f . .. --
S
f . --
f •
-
$500.0
$180.0
r
S 1255
-
S 018.8
Number
0
- 0
-
0
0
0
0'
.' 0
- 0
- 0
0
- 3
-0.0
9.7
1
5�posyro
M
f
f' -
f -
8 •-
f
f � --
f - -
f -
f -
-f .. -
.f...
-,
E
f.
-
$
$ -
S
S 50.0
S -
S 4.9
'
S 34.9
Flood
180
sop
Numher
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
2
D
10.8
Dofuro
S •
f -
f •
f '•
f
f •-
f -
f SA
f •
f -
'f -
s -.
s- -
f -
S •
$ -
$500.0.
$100.0
$ •
f 6.1
$ 800A
umber
0
0
0
1
0
0.
0
0
.0
0
0
- 0-
0
a
0.0
1S &2
waroa
S -.
i �
f =
f
f
f =
f •-
f -
f
e
f
-
f -.
f -
S
S -
$ -
$ BOA
S . - -
S 88.1
S -158.1
Lando Ma
f
0
0
d
1
- 0
.0
0
0-
0:
0
- •'' -0
-
0
0
8
Dogma
M
i -
f -
f -is
f
f -
f -
E -
f :•
f
f -
f r
f -•
..:
'f
f -
$'.
$ -
S
E. -
S 3.0
S- 3.0
I.4ufaydon
lkdarah
Hbh
ber
o
0
: 0
0
0
a
- 0
0
0
0
0
.T
.0
147.j
Fxpwyro
a
f -
s
s
s -
s. -
s' -
s -
a -
s . •
s. .-
a.. ?
s'
E .
-
s -
s •..s
70.0
s -
s 7oA
$ +00.6
0
0
0
-0
0
0
p
1
0-
0
0
0
:.
. 0
0
2
0.0
- 23.1
Expoeuro
5
f
$ -
f -
f -f
-
f
Is 9A
f
f -f.
AS
-
f
-
S .. -
S
E. -
5500.0
E 50.0
S -
$ iDBA
S 858.8
very Hiy
NumhOr
0-
0
0
-- 0
0
0
01
0
- 0
-.. 0
0
0
-' -
0
0
0
4
1 0.0
13.0
Ergmuro
S -
S
E -
f -
f
E -
f -
f r
f •
'.f . -
.f -
-
5
S -
f
$ -
f -
S 40.0111
�-
.
S Bb
S 46.6
WIMBf bun Fire
. _
HIP
Exh
NumOer
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0"
-:0
0
'..0
a
0
O
t 0
3
X
24
Eypnyro
E
S
f -is.
f-
$
f -
f
f
f r
s-
f -.
Y$
3
$90.0
It
$ 127
$ 025
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0.0
f -
f .•
f
E
f . -
E -
f ,
f -
f
f -
`f ' -
f.. -
S -
S .•
S •
It -
i •
It •
$
0
0 0
0
-: 0-
c'0
0
0
Pmyro
' E
11
=
E --
f
-
E
-'f
-
S�`: -
f
-.E
S.
3 =
i
S
S.
S .
[11 Lop value Is asset replacement value In 2006 d01111m. Value shown Is towel as oewn of assets It trom the particular hazard limas h1oh4yul unit asset value.
[2] Grand Total Loss value shown may Include the same assets counted multiple Mmes for dUhrant hazards.
SECTIONFIVE
0CVW
5.16 OCWD - OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
61sk Assessment
OCWD reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information
and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their
jurisdiction.'See Section 4 for additional details.
OCWD Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.16.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified'corrent capabilities .available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well. as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides OCWD's fiscal
capabilities that maybe applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
516.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal. and regulatory capabilities of OCWD are shown in Table 5.16.2 -1, which presents the existing
ordinances and.codes that affect the physical or built environment of OCWD.:Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning. ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans; economic development plans, emergency response plans, and' real estate
disclosure plans.
Table 5.16.2 -1
Legal and Re ulato ry Capability
Local
state
Othar.Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes; plans)
Authority
Avftft
JAuthortlam
Authority
comments
(Yellmo)
(Y"Mo)
(YesMa)
A Building code
No
Yes
Yes
B. Zoning ordinance
NO
No'
Yes
C. Subdivision oinanae or regulations.
No
No
Yes
D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain
management, stormwatermanageiaent
No
Yes
Yes
hillside or steep slope ordinances, WWre .
ordinances, hazard setback requirements): "
E Growth management ordinances (also called
No
No
`smart growth or anti sprawl programs)
No
F. Site plan review requirements
No
No
Yes
UM o� Wodasu°GS -106
0
•
•
• SECTIONFM OCWD BiskAssessmeot
•
Legal and RegulatM Capability
.
RegulataryTools (ordinances„ codes, plans)
Local
Auticority
(Yesmo)
sate
Autiwrily
(Y�o)
olherLevel
Jurisdiction
Authaity
(YeslNo)
Comments
G. General or plan
No
No
Yes
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
Yes
I. An economicdevelopnentplan
No
No
Yes
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
K A posWisaster recovery plan
No
Yes
Yes
L A post- disaster recovery ordinance
No
Yes
Yes
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
No
Yes
Yes
N. Waste Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
fate Water Resources Control
oard
wS o�.nw4aamw5 -107
SECTIONFIVE
ocwD
5.16.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
61SN Assessment
The following is a summary of existing departments in OCWD and their responsibilities related to' hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of OCWD, as
shown in Table 5.16.3 -1, provides an identification of the stag personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. ;Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
Table 5.16.3 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
StmVersonnel Resources
YeclNo
DepaimentAgency and Posidon
1. A. Planner(s) or engineers) wish knowledge
of land development and land management
No
prawces
2. Engineer(s) or professionid(s) trained In
constmciion practices related to brdkfings
Yes
OCWD- Engineering Department
andfor lydrastucture
3. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding
No
of natural andror humantaused hazards
4. Floodplain manager
No
5. Surveyors
No
6. Staff with educallon or e)perdse to assess the
No
l6ty
communiVs vulnerab'to hazards
7. Personnel shed in GIS andlor HAZUS
Yes
OCWD- Hydrogeoiogy Department
8. Sden6sts familar with the hazards of the
NO
community
9. Emergency manager
Yes
OCWD - RlsidSalety Department
10. Grant writers
Yes
OCWD - Plarming Department
11. Other
Yes
OCYtID -Water QuafdyLob
XIM Do twod-06'SW5 -108
•
•
•
•
SECTIONFIVE
5.16.4. Fiscal Capability
OCWD
RISRAssessment
Table 5.16.4 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to OCWD such as community
development block. grants; capital improvements project funding, authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services;. impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
Table 5.16.41
Fiscal Capabiiity
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/No/Don't Know)
• CamwnityDevelopment Sock Grants (CDBG)
No
• Capital tmprovernents pro)ecttunding
Yes
• Authonlyto levy taxes forspecific purposes
No
• Fees torwater , sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
• Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new
developmentslhomes
No
• Inca debt through general obrigallon bonds
Yes
• Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes
• Incur debt through p"e activlty bonds
Yes
• Mhotd spending in hazard-prone areas
No
5.16.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are OCWD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the OCWD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and.,an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
o�d w* msoc5 -109
NECTIONFIVE 0CVVD Risk Assessmem
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the OCWD's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, OCWD representatives met with consultant staff
and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Boyd Lypka, Chuck Steinburg, and Lo Tan. Once developed,
OCWD staff presented them to the OC WD Board of Directors for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identifieationtprofiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by OCWD's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard
Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
5.16.6 Orange County. Water District Goals
A. Goal —Deter unauthorized access to key facilities
1. Objective — Improve site security
a. Action I — Install fencing/gates in selected areas
b. Action 2 - Construct a permanent operations structure
B. Goal —Reduce potential loss to existing. infrastructure
1. Objective — Increase protection of facilities within flood plain area
a. Action i —Reinforce the levees of the wetlands and diversion structures
C. Goal — Deter unauthorized access to key facilities
1. Objective —, Improve site security
a. Action — Install security cameras
b. Action - Install automated.entrance gates
D. Goal - Maintain continuous operations of key facilities
1. Objective— Provide backup system for critical facilities . .
a. Action— Acquire mobile emergency power generator system
2. Objective— Protect reservoirs from overflow
a. Action - Install larger capacity culvert with control valves
Um 10
0
SECTICNFIVE OMD I RMAssessment
Table 8.16.1 OCWD Lon estimation Table
aiam
pacana os
6rM0uab
Mode
,H9
Mma.
a
Number
6�euro
Number.
WET
17A
S -
REB
30A
4
$120.0
14
WTP
f0A
S -
i
P8
2A
1
S 2.0
PRO HT
02 0.3
0 0
E - 8 -
0 0
80
OA
0
S -
0
Al.
3A
0
S As
2
OA'
0
-
0
.
1V1VTP
QA
0
S. -
0
..
WELL
'.35
0
S -
0
OIEM9t
A
0
S -
0
OC26PS
31.0
'0
E
0-
PRS-0ET
2A
0-
..
S' -
0
PP
12.0
0
S -
0
WWIPI
SOGWA
!OA
0
S -
0
WWTP-
OCSD
350A
0
S -
0
LSOM
10A
0
E -
0
Py1L.'
�tA "'.:.
-
S -
0.0
WNL
05
115
3 6d
A
Ta a Lora
Valonp-
3 127.8
Posure
M
S.13A
$420.0
$10.0
S MIS
-
S -
S -
S 6.0
S -.
S
S -
S -IS,
-
9 -� -
E
E
S'
_
0
0
0.
. 0
- '0
0
0
0
-: 0
0
0
,
-
-
E -
E -
S 33.413
48IA
Efia
un
0
0
- OA
OA
S -
S
E -
S -is
-.
E •
S -
S -
S: -
It -
.S
S
E
E -
E
S
S
E -
S
3
Flood
r
0
0
2
0
0
a
'0
0
0
a
-
100
Erp"m
,e
S 13.0
5 330.0
210.0
S 2A
S -
S -
E -
S 6.0
S -
S '.
S.
s -
E -
E.
E
E
S
Number
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
0
,
0
-
-
S -
S -
S 23.9
3 354.9
Boor
5rywuro
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0-
0
0
- oA
11.1
rim
S. -.
S -
$60.0
E MIS
-
-is
•.
S -.
3..
S -
S -
-
-
E •.
E
S
S
UnddMa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_E.
-
-
-
-
S
3 8.6.3
675
Bq-ur
Fapoeum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
.2
M
S
s -
S -
S.•
s -
S -
E -
S -is
S -
S.-
S
-
E -
S -is
-
S -
S
E -
S 0.1
3 0.1
Urtuffacam
Num r
111
2
01
0
0
0
0-
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eapauro
0
01
0.0
6.0
S -
it 60.0
S -
E -
.S -
S -
S . -
S All
-
•,
S
S AS
-
S. -
E -
E
S
S
Number
it
4
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
..•
-
-
-
S
S 2.8
3 625
Hip
B&0ervro
0
V
0
-
0
0
a
0
a.. 0
S 13.0
5420.0
$10.0
S 4.0
S -
S -
S -
S 6.0
E -
S -
•
S -
S
S' -
E. -
E
E
E
Very Hb
Num r
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0.
.S .
-
-
-'
S
S 20.7
3 473.7
EiPesuro
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0.0
1.
-.
. i
-
E -
S -
E -
S - -
S 05.
3 0.8
MINdS6ocWn Rn
Number
0
f
0
0
1
'0
0.'
.0
0-
0
0
0
0
- 0,0
15.0
sum
M
S •
S810.0
E -
S 2.0
S-
S r
i
S 3.0
E
S. -
S e
S -
E-
E.
S -
E.
S
S
Number
0
0
0
0
0
.•
-
-
-
S -
S 7.6
3 822.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
High
Ewwro
MA
S -
S -
S -
S -.
S -
S -
S -
S •
.E . -'E
•.
5..-
E -
E
E- .
S -.
S
S.. -
S
S.
S
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 00
0
0
0
-
-O
-
-.
0.1
3 0.1
Este
Eaquuro
0-
.-u
0.0
E
11
E •.
i -
S -
9 -
S-
-
3
Grand Tccel 2,124.3
L1] Loan data Is asset replacement
lwo shown may In In 2006 the some Value shovrn
me h found at eeuntof web at flak f{om the pirdwlpr hazam times hlehrond unit asset value. -
I21 Grand Total Lose vaWa shown may Include the name roam mounted nwitipla times for diftersnt hazards.
UM �was S -llI
SECTIONME ORANGE RiskAssesstneat •
5.17 CITY OF ORANGE — OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
The City of Orange (Orange) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical
facility information and localized potential hazard exposurefloss estimates to help identify the top hazards
threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
Orange Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.17.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified.current.capabitities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion ofthe jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides. Orange's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5.17.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of Orange are shown in Table 5.17.2- 1, which presents the existing..
ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of.0range. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, •
special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital
improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency. response plans, and real estate disclosure
plans.
Table 517.2 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
•
Ms o.��naao-auoc5 -112
Local
Does.
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) .
Authority
rate have
Authority?
urisdictl
Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
A. Bulding code
Yes
No
Yes
OCFA, AQMD
B. Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
No
C. Subcfluldon ordinance or regtdations
Yes
No
No
D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplaki
Regional Water Quality Control
management, swirnwater management
Yes
No
Yes
Board (RWQCB }, USFWS,
hillside or deep slope ordinances, Milfre
CDFG
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
•
Ms o.��naao-auoc5 -112
• SELTIONF1W ORANGE RiskASsesslhelit
•
Table 5.17.2- 1(continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability
5.17.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Orange and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The' administrative and technical capabilities of Orange, as
'shown in Table 5.17.3 -1, provides an identification of the stab personmel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers, with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
•
MW
D.u..m :.osomw5 -113
Local
Does.
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authori
State have
uthcri
urisdiction
Authority
Comments
(YeslNo)
.
(Yes/Nc)
(YeslNc)
E. Growth management ordinances (also called
Yes
No
No
"smart growth' or arrd$praW programs)
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
No
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
No
No
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No
I. Anecononk development plan
Yes
No
No
J, An emergency response plan ..
Yes
No
Yes
WEROC. SEMIS ,
K. A posHiisaster reoovery plan
Yes
No
Yes
NIMS
L A post- disastermonery ordinance
No ,.
Yes
Yes
f.E.MA., State of CA
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
Yes
Yes
No
State Realtor Board
N. Security Issues
Yes
Yes
No
CA DHS via Vulnerability
Assessment
0. Safety
Yes
Yes
No
Cal OSHA
P: water0uarity
Yes
Yes
Yes
CA DHS, US EPA
5.17.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Orange and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The' administrative and technical capabilities of Orange, as
'shown in Table 5.17.3 -1, provides an identification of the stab personmel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers, with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
•
MW
D.u..m :.osomw5 -113
SECTIONFWE ORANGE RIMAssessiment •
Table 5.17.3 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes/No
DepartmentrAgency and Position
A. Planner(s) or engineers) with knowledge ,
of land dewdopment and land
Yes
Public Works/Cily Engineer
management practices
B. Eag' ateers)orpmfessional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
Public Work&Vty Engineer
arwor infrastructure
C. Planners or Engkreer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or human-
Yes
Public WorkslCity Engineer
caused hazards
D. Floodplain manages
Yes
{range County Flood Control t!stdct
E. Surveyors
No
F. Staff with education or expertise to assess
No
the cwwmk *svutnerabHkytohazards
G. Personnel skilled in'GIS and /or HAZUS
Yes
Public Works! GIS Coordinator
H. Scientists fandGar with the hazards of the
No
community .
I. Emergency manager
Yes
City Manager Office
J. Grartwriters
Yes
City M anagerOffice
K Other —Water Quality Lab
Yes
WaterD 'nrisionI Water Quality Impactors
5.17.4 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.17.4 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Orange such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or develops for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
Im Do mmaanatsoc5 -114
LJ
n
0
SECTIONFM
ORANGE
Table 5.17.4 1
Fiscal Capability
1110ftse$splent
5.174 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Listed below are Orange's specific hazer mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified. that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the .jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment.. These preliminary goals,. objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of.long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives .met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to. specifically discuss. these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The LPG members were Joe De Francesco and Son Tran. Once developed, City staff
presented them to the Orange City Council for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions -as prepared by Orange's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard
Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
D...K1*0 -asurra5 =115
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/NolDon't Know)
A.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Yes
B.
Capital Improvements project funding
Yes
C.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes .
Yes
D.
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
E.
.
Impact fees for homebuyers or. developers for new
developmentsbomes
Yes
F.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
G.
Incur debt through spedd tax and revenue bonds.
Yes
H.
Incur debt through private activity bonds
Yes
1.
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
Dolt know
5.174 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Listed below are Orange's specific hazer mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified. that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the .jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment.. These preliminary goals,. objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of.long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives .met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to. specifically discuss. these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The LPG members were Joe De Francesco and Son Tran. Once developed, City staff
presented them to the Orange City Council for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification /profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions -as prepared by Orange's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard
Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
D...K1*0 -asurra5 =115
SECTIONFiVE ORANGE 11110Usessmeut •
Table 5.17.5 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
5.17.6 City of Orange Goals
Orange has developed the following Goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Goal 1. Ensure a cost effective, safe, and dependable potable water supply,for'domestic uses
and fire protection
Objective lA Provide and preserve infrastructure, facilities, and programs
• Action 1: Prepare the Water Master plan, and review deficiencies in the system and
hazard area.
• Action 2: Prepare the Asset Management plan, which includes and takes into
consideration Economic and financial impacts to Orange
• Action 3: Create a maintenance program for all important facilities
Objective 1.13 Reduce the possibility of losses and damage to existing property due to natural hazards
Action 1: Propose improvement and retrofit for seismic protection.
• Action 2: Contimtous monitoring of hazard sensitive areas
Action 3: Have a regular schedule for inspections
Objective I.C. Respond quickly and effectively to hazard disasters
• Action 1: Prepare an emergency /contingency plan to quickly mitigate the problems
•. Action 2: Maintain the 24 hours emergency hotline to allow timely reporting of a
disaster
WS
o;a. dnsoamuoc5 -116
•
•
Programs, Plans,
Effect. on Loss Reductlon'
Agency Name
(Mission/Function)
Policies.
Regulations,
Funding, or
Practises
Point of Contact
Name, Address,.
Phone, Email
Comments
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Provide
1. Water Master Plan
Water Manager
X
overallpiewof
the water
Water Dividon
system
Asset Management
Za
Water Manager
X
Budget
e
P g
5.17.6 City of Orange Goals
Orange has developed the following Goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Goal 1. Ensure a cost effective, safe, and dependable potable water supply,for'domestic uses
and fire protection
Objective lA Provide and preserve infrastructure, facilities, and programs
• Action 1: Prepare the Water Master plan, and review deficiencies in the system and
hazard area.
• Action 2: Prepare the Asset Management plan, which includes and takes into
consideration Economic and financial impacts to Orange
• Action 3: Create a maintenance program for all important facilities
Objective 1.13 Reduce the possibility of losses and damage to existing property due to natural hazards
Action 1: Propose improvement and retrofit for seismic protection.
• Action 2: Contimtous monitoring of hazard sensitive areas
Action 3: Have a regular schedule for inspections
Objective I.C. Respond quickly and effectively to hazard disasters
• Action 1: Prepare an emergency /contingency plan to quickly mitigate the problems
•. Action 2: Maintain the 24 hours emergency hotline to allow timely reporting of a
disaster
WS
o;a. dnsoamuoc5 -116
•
•
• SECYIONFWE or ROE RINAssesslnent
Goal 2. NTinimize water loss due to. natural disasters
Objective 2.A Reduce water loss as much as possible
• Action 1: Improve structural and connection of reservoirs and pump stations
• Action 2: Exercise all system valves on a regular basis as outlined by the valve
exercise program
• Action 3: Design facilities with flexible connections
Objective 2.13 Increase water supply sources
• Action 1: Promote coordination with surrounding water agencies
• Action 2: Connect with neighboring cities through inter-tie locations for
emergency supply
• Action 3: Provide back up power for all well sites and pump stations
• Action 4: Increase storage capacity
Goal 3. Provide continuous potable water during natural hazards
• Objective 3.A Improve site security
• Action 1: Improve site fencing per Vulnerability Assessment Studies
recommendation
• Action 2: Install camera and wireless communication at all facilities
• Action 3: Continuing with daily site check
Objective 3.13 Improve response time
• Action 1: Keep Emergency Response Plans up- to-date
• Action 2: Update system maps to reflect current condition
• Action 3: Maintain stand -by crew for emergency repair
• Action 4: Provide NIMS and SEMS training for all employees per EPA guidelines
• Action 5: Participate and coordinate with WEROC and other member agencies in
hazard preparedness
Objective 3.0 Protect potable water from contamination
Action 1 • Continue'with backilow prevention program
• Action 2: Monitor low- pressure areas in the water system
• Action 3: Strictly enforce standard separation between water infrastructure and
other utilities
• Goal 4. Minimize damage to facilities and infrastructure
WS
n..mmoam w5447
SfCT10NFIVE ORANGE Risk Assessment •
Objective 4.A Protect existing assets from natural disasters
Action 1: Inspect all facilities to ensure proper maintenance
• Action 2: Perform retrofitting for facilities in disaster prone areas
• Action 3: Secure above ground assets at all facilities
• Action 4: Keep up with the maintenance schedule
Objective 4.B Improvelreplace facilities.within disaster.prone area
• Action 1: Establish plans to prioritize and identify facilities that need improvement
• Action 2: Follow current standards, guidelines, and codes
• Action 3: Avoid building in high -risk areas
Um
noo.�w+aa+m�socS -118
SECTIONFIVE ORANOR
Table 5.11.1 Orange Load Estimation Table
RlskASSaas[uaat'
U
f,J
Nszud
ksora
WST
RU
WTP
PS.
PRS
EIT SC
ABM
- L8
-WWTP
WELL OIEMER
OC4SPS
PR84LEY
- PP
iNV1TP.
SOCWA
WWP•
0050 ILS-OCSO
PWL
sums
Earthquake
Moder
-+
Number
13.1
SOA
0
104
2A
8
04 1.3 OA
019
4
SA OA - 5A'
3 - 0 - 0
SS 250.0
1S - 0
154
0
12A
. 0-
1210 SOA
0 0
150.0 VIA
0
1.0
3 .0
OS$
Exposure
M
S iBA.
S . •
S
f i8A
S 0.8
f 2.1
S 2A
1
S 9.0
f :
S-
$524
S
S
S --
-
S -
S -
$ -
S
310.0
Hlp
Number
t2
0
0-
f0
B
f0
5
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
6.8
Exposre
$168.0S
S
520.0
S 1R
5:3.0�
; 3.0.
S -
S
S
S -
'S
S
S- -
S
S -
S
S -
S 158.8
Number
0
-. '0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-.
- 0
0
0
0
'. 0.
posure
S
•
S •
S -
It --
S
S -
It •.
It
S -
S --
It --
E
S
S -
It
S -
S
It
S
S
Plead
100
6600
-
0
- 1
2
0
- 2
0
0
.3
A
ure
-
$ 13A
S -
S •.
S 2.0
S.
S -. 0.3.
S t.2
S- •
-S :•
S:- -
'S 7.0
S
It --
S -•
S --
S -
S -
S -
S 29.3
S -
S 52A
Number
0
0
. 1
-' 1
6
0
0
- -,a
6'
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
- 103A
- CA
Erpoeure.
S .13.0
-
S' -
>E 2.0
S- 0.2
S- t4
S
S -
S .
S
1.6
S •
S -
S -
S -•
.S
S -
S -
f 103.3
S
141.0
Lands Ms
Number
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
30.6
0.0
-
ExlASwe
M�
S 9fA
S -
S
-
$12.0
S OA.
S. O.S.
.$
S
S -
-
9
S
S.
S. -
S
S-
$
S .13
•.
S 3060
S -
S 1M.6
Llqu6ndon'
Mode
Hill
Nuin 'r
4
0
3.
-10
- 0
0
- 0
- 0
18.1
.0
Expaewe
S 6260
S
S
f't0A
S OA
IS-OA
S 12
S 960E
r
6-
536.0.
S-
S -
S -
S
$ -
S
S 218.1
S 324.8
umber
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
- 0
0
0
Q
0
A
D"M
S -
S
S- •
S-
S 0.2
$. -
S -
S -
5 -•
S- -
$104
S -
S. •
S..
S
•
S 20.8
S -
S. 31.5
VeryFl"q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67-6
- 0
0
0.
.0
0.
Posua
M
S -
S
S
S-
S
S
S
S .•
S
S- >
S
S -
S..
f
$ -
S
S
S -
S -$
-
S
WSONSIBUUdure Pin
Lo
H9
Exbmm
2
0
4
2
0
0
0
-. 0
0
_ 0
0
-- 0
12.
.0
uro
S 28.0
S.
S.
E BA
S OA
S
S.
$
S --
S.5
S - -
S -
S •..S
.•
S
S
3 -
5 12.3
S
S - 604
Nmtm
0
0
0
E$O,3
0-
- 0
0
0
0
'0
0
- 0.
.1
OA
uro
$ 26.0
S
S -
S -
S -
S
S -
-$ r.
S . -
-
S •.
S -
S-
S
d -
S
S 3./.
$
S 29.1
Mmba
0
0
9-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0A
Exposure,
$
S -
•
S
s
-
�S ':
S-
LL
S
�.
_
S
-
s --
S -
-
S - -
S
-
-
[t] Lou wants Is asset replacement value In 2008 dollars. Value shown In found as count of assets at risk from the particular hazard ttmcs.hlahwnd unN asst vahm.
[2] Grand Total Loom value shown may include the am" assail oountad,muldPle "as 100 different hazards.. -
SECTIONFIVE SMWD 6iskAssessment •
5.18 SANTA MARGARITA —OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
The Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including
detailed critical Facility information and.localized potential hazard exposuretloss estimates to help identify
the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
SMWD Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.18.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified .current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Santa Margarita's
fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified
mitigation action items.
5.18.2 Legal and Regulatory Capability— Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) Sewer System
5182.1 ,Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances .
The legal and regulatory capabilities of SMWD are shown in Table 5.18.2 1-1, which presents the •
existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Santa Margarita. Examples
of legal and/or regulatory capabilities: can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances,
subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth..managcment ordinances, site plan review,
general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and
real estate disclosure plans.
Table 5.18.2.1 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
- _
Local
Does: state
Other Level
-
Regulatory Tools ( ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Have
Authority?
Jurlsdlctlon
Authority
Comments
(Yes 0)
(YesiNo)
(YesJNo)"
A. Bidding oode
No
Yes
No
Some Fxceplions Apply
B. Zoning ordinance '
No
No
No
C. Subdivision ordinance or regrlagons
No
No
No
•
WIS D..m new4mwS -120
0
U
•
SECTIONFIVE
SMWb
Table 5.1 &21 -1 (continued) -
Legal and Regulatory Capability
RISRAssessment
5.18.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing deliartmems in SMNVD and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and mutations. related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of SMD, as
shown in Table 5.18.3 -1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources .
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land
F
o� woaw=5 -121
Local
Does State
other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Have
Authority?
Jurisdiction
Authority
Comments
(Y"INo)
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
County of Orange Flood
D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain
Control DisWcV Orange
management, storm water managemert
Yes
Yes
Yes
County Fire Authority!
hil" or steep slope ordnances, wildfire
USACE I USFWS I CDFG
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
(RESOURCE AGENCIES)
E. Growth management ordinances (also
called "smant growth' or anti- sprawl
No
No
No
programs)
F. Site plan revlew requirements
Yes
No
No
OCFA PERMITS
G. General or comprehensive plan
No
Yes
Yes
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No
t. An economic development plan
No
No
No
J. An emergency response plan
No
Yes
Yes
SEMSINIMS
K A postdbaster recovery plan
No
No
No
L. A postdisasler rerave}y ordinance
No
No
No
Advantageous For
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
No
No
No
Dtstrid Opa!atiars
Dis pril
N. VtMeralftAssessment
No
Yes
Yes.
US EPA
0. Dams
Yes
Yes
RWOCB/ DSQD
P. VA ERP
Yes
Yes
USEPPI OES
Q. Title 17 & 71
Yes
Yes
CA.DHS
R Waste Water
Yes
Yes
RWQCB
S. Air Quality
Yes
Yes
AQMD
T. Safely
Yes
Yes
CA OSHA
State W Resources
U. Waste Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
Control Bard
control
5.18.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing deliartmems in SMNVD and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and mutations. related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of SMD, as
shown in Table 5.18.3 -1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources .
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land
F
o� woaw=5 -121
SECTIANFIVE SMWD HINAssesstnent •
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure,, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS stills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
Table 5.18.3 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff /Personnel Resources
Yes/No
Department/Agency and Position
A. Planners) or engineers) with Imowiedge of
land development and land management
Yes
SMWD ENGINEERING DEPT STAFF
practices
B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) pained in
construction practices related to brdldirgs
Yes
INHOUSE & CONSULTANTS
andfor inhashucture
C. Planners orEr4neer(s)withan
understanding .olnaturalandlorhuman-
No
caused hawds
D. Fbodplain manager
No
E. Surveyors
Yes
CONSULTANTS
F. Staff with education or expertise to assess
Yes
ERP
the communiVs whierabigty to hazards
G. Personnel staled in GIS ardor HAZUS .
No
H. Scientists familar w1h the hazards of tire
Yes
CONSULTANTS
ocmmun8y
1. Emergency manager
Yes
SMWD Operations Manager
J. (rant writers
No
K Other
Yes
Lab stab @ Ctdquita WRP Lab
5.18A Fiscal Capability
•
Table 5.18.4 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Santa Margarita such as
community development block.grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for
specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or
developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding
spending in hazard -prone areas. .
n,ammn a oa ostsos� =122
• SECTIONFIVE SMWD RiskAssessmlaM
•
Table 5.18.41
Fiscal Capability
5.18.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Santa Margarita's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and.
gam•
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessmenL These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and' reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff
and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Steve Francis, Ron Meyer, and Jaime Aguilar. Once
developed, District staff presented them to the SMWD Board of Directors for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard ideritificatiordprofiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Santa Margarita's LPG in conjunction with the
• Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Ulm Do MII+s.ca.os W5 -123
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/No/Don't Know)
A
Community Development Block Grards (CDBG)
No
B.
Capital impmvemerds project funding
Yes
C.
Authodtyto levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
D.
Fees for waK sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
E.
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new
devetopmenWhomes
Yes
F.
kxurdebtthmgh general oblgallonbonds,
Yes
G.
Incur debt through special tax and reverwe bonds
Yes
H.
Incur debt through privale advly bonds
No
I.
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
Don't Know
5.18.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Santa Margarita's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential
actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the
goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and.
gam•
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessmenL These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and' reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff
and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Steve Francis, Ron Meyer, and Jaime Aguilar. Once
developed, District staff presented them to the SMWD Board of Directors for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard ideritificatiordprofiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Santa Margarita's LPG in conjunction with the
• Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Ulm Do MII+s.ca.os W5 -123
SECTIONFiVE SMWD HIMftsessmeM •
Table 5.18.5 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
5.18.61 SMWD Goals
Goal Gh Reduce SMWD's Vulnerability to Disaster Related Service Disruptions
Objective:
GI /Ol: Improve domestic water system site security
Gl /02: Protect existing domestic water assets and ensure public safety
Un oocu ,+aocw=DC5-124
u
•
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction'
Agency Name
. Policies,
Regulations,
Point of Contact
Name, Address,
Comments
(Mission/Function)
Funding, or
Phone,EmaB
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
SMWD Finance
Manager
1. Insurance
26111 Antonio Pkwy
Yes
Yes
Las Flores CA 92688
(949) 4596573
SMWD Finance
2. Funding: Capital
Manager / Chief
Improvement
Engineer
Pram GaPM
26111 Antonio Pkwy
Yes
Yes
Las Flores CA 92688
Reserve
Santa Margarita
(949) 459-6689
Water District Sewer
System
SMWD Operations
Field Superintendent
3. Vulneratdtity
26111 Antonio Pkwy
Yes
Yes
Assignment
Las Flores CA 92688
.
(949) 459.6589
4. Emergency
Same as above in #3
Yes
Yes
Operation Plans
5. Emergency Power
.
Equipment at
Same as above in #3
sewage ift station
facilities
5.18.61 SMWD Goals
Goal Gh Reduce SMWD's Vulnerability to Disaster Related Service Disruptions
Objective:
GI /Ol: Improve domestic water system site security
Gl /02: Protect existing domestic water assets and ensure public safety
Un oocu ,+aocw=DC5-124
u
•
• SEMONFIVE
Actions:
-
-
GI /0I /Al:
GI /Ol /A2:
GI /0l /A3:
GI /02/Al:
G2/0I /A2:
GI /02/A3:
G I /02/A4
GI /02/A5:
SMWD
Risk Assessment
Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations
Improve security at certain facilities and install surveillance equipment
Maintain operations daily /weekly site visit monitoring program to each facility
Install and maintain equipment at essential facilities
Maintain existing flexible connections at steel tank reservoirs for seismic activity
Upgrade SCADA spread spectrum wireless system to existing sites as needed
Install emergency collection structures at each tank site to capture released water.
Keep Emergency Operations Plan up- to-date
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY.'
SMWD constructs site improvements as facilities are scheduled for upgrade or retrofitting. Projects are
implemented as funding is available in the Capital. Improvement Program update using remaining bond
fiinds.or from specific line items in the Capital Replacement Reserve account.
Goal G2:
Protect Imported Water Reliability
Objective:
G2101: Obtain
an emergency source of imported water:
G2/02: Increase Emergency Domestic Water Storage
Actions:
G2/0I /Al:
Interconnect with IRWD's water system for service to the ATM
G2/0I /A2:
Interconnect with IRWD's system for service to the AMP
G2/0I /A3:
Interconnect with MNWD JTM to supply the ETWD R6 reservoir
G2/0I /A3
Improve and maintain other interconnections with.TCWD and MNWD
G2/02/Al:
Conduct the Upper Chiquita Emergency Storage Reservoir (500 AF)
G2/02/A2:
Construct the East Ortega Emergency Storage Reservoir (2000+ AF)
G2/02/A3:
Maintain emergency storage capacity in ETWD's R6 Reservoir
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY.
SMWD staff will coordinate with neighboring water districts, MWDOC, and NET to prioritize and
implement projects on a regional basis.
IJ7
ooa. "w4a-wsDo5 -125
SECTIONFIVE SMWD Risk Assessment
Goal G3: Protect the Public Water Supply from contamination caused by private system
backilow in the event of an earthquake
Objective:
G3101: To maintain separation of all potential hazardous potable water services with the newer required
backflow prevention device to prevent backpressure or back - siphonage that could contaminate the public
water supply.
G3/02: To require all fire systems in SMWD to be upgraded to,meet standards for backflow prevention
(possibly using a Double -Check Detector Assembly) that can be tested annually to determine if they are
working property. The water quality. in fire systems has been proven not safe for human consumption
based on water quality tests that found maximum potable water contaminant levels such as iron,: lead,
cadmium, manganese, and total colif rm.
Actions:
G3 /01/Al: SMWD is continually monitoring the public water supply and requiring the installation of
State Health Department approved backflow prevention devices on all hazardous potable services. All
fires systems are upgraded to a. Double -Check Detector Assembly if the site is being refurbished.
Approximately 50 single -check fire systems exist in SMWD with a total upgrade cost of.about, 1,0
million.
IMPLEMENTATION MillTEGY.•
The SMWD backflow prevention staff will investigate and determine the degree of hazard at all'single-
detector check locations. Each potential conversion site will be evaluated to determine the correct
backflow prevention device.
Goal G4: Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills
Objective:
134/01: Provide emergency storage structure for all sewage lift facilities
G4/02: Protect facilities within flood plain areas
Actions:
G4 /01 /Al:
G4/01/A2:
G4/01/A3:
G4/02/Al:
G4/02/A2:
Construct an. emergency storage structure (where needed) at sewage lift stations
Standardize and upgrade older lift station electrical and instrumentation systems
Install permanent emergency power generator at all older lift stations
Place protective measures in rivers and creeks
install jointless pipelines in all creek crossings and slope easements
0
u
r1
• SECTIONME sMWD RiskAssessmed
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
SMWD staff would coordinate with an outside consultanGto prioritize existing facilities that would be lost
or damaged from flooding or earthquakes.
Goal G5: Protect Chiquita Water Reclamation Plant facilities
Objective:,
G510 1 : Provide emergency storage capability at the Influent Lift Station
G5/02: Provide facilities to minimize fire danger to sensitive equipment
Actions:
G5/01 /Al: Add an emergency storage basin (3- 6 million gallons) fbr the Chiquita Water
Reclamation Plant ILS
G5 /01 /A2: Install water cannons around the gas storage sphere
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY.
SMWD staff would coordinate with an outside consultant to review existing facilities and design new
. improvements that would help mitigate damage from earthquake or fires. .
Goal G6: Protect communities from potential earthquake Induced dam'inundation
Objective:
G6101: Update recycled . water reservoir dam failure inundation studies.
G6102: Advise local, agencies of flooding from potential dais failure
G6/03: Construct 'a.seepage water removal well at Portola Dam to eliminate soil liquefaction
potential.
Actions:
G6 /01 /Al: Contract for an updated inundation study
G6/02/A2: Provide copies of updated study to appropriate agencies
G6/03/A3: Request FEMA/OES mitigation funding to construct a seepage water.removal well at
Portola Dam
IWLFIMW14TATION STRATEGY:
SMWD staff would coordinate with an outside consultant to review existing facilities and design new
• improvements that would help mitigate damage from an earthquake.
Um
o;,,,m,eon-0esoc5 -127:
SECTIONFIVE SMVJD
Table 5.18.1 Santa Margarita Loss Estimation Table
RlskAsussmaht
Nixon! a
IF men or
llann)
a
WST
13A
I RES
1 30.0
WIP
10A
PS
2A
PRS
U
- EIT
OA
SC
04
ADM
SA
LS
OA
WWTP
-- 54
WELL
3,5
DIEEER
250.0
bC4$Pf
00
PR"eT
12A
PP
t2A
WWTP•
-SOCWA
SOA
WWTP-
OCSD
253.0
L9-OCSD
13.0
FWL -
110
WWL
65
TOW Lou
Yalu$(1 ) $H
ErMquq
Am"
Mebeer
Erposuro
38
2
32
33
-21
6
1
3-
0
D
0
0
0
0
1.
1TA
H
Number
Exposure
$494.0.
0
f 60.0
f -
0
$64.0
0
f BA'
0
S 6.3
f 3.6
1
f 3A
0
f BA
0-
f .15.0
f 7.0
0
f
0
f -
f
0
S -
$ -
0
S -
0
S -
0
S 103,7
4.1
S BA
S 778A
Extra
Al
Number
f -
$
0
S -
f -
0
f -
f 0.3
0
f 0.8
f -
f. -
f -is
0
f
0
f -
0
f -
S -
0
f -
S -
- 0
S a
.0
S 4.1
- 0
S -is
0.0
5.0
poewe
-
Flood
t00
Number'
f •
0
f
f-
f -
f -
0
f .
1
S -$'
-$
0
•
2
f
s-
."0
0
s -
S
0
s-
s
0
S
S
0
S
A
S
0
s
p6swe
bar
0
0
- 0
BA
0
f -$
0
03'
0
f 1A
.'
Y -
0
f 0A
0
$-
0
f •
'0
f -
0
f. -
D
f
0
S
0
11
0
S -
0
S --
0
S 5A
0
S 0.3
OA
S 15.0
.
500
um
landdke
Number
$
18'
f -
- 0
f -
2
f -
f -
2
-
1
$ -
0
f -
f.
Y
f .•
1
f -
0
f
0
$
f -
0
$
S -
D
S -
D
S 0.2
TT.7
S -
.7
S 0.2
uro
Llqullacibn
tAde
id
ErPOlwe
$205.0
-
$ -
f
f 4.0
$ 2.0
1
f. 0.8
7
f' 0.6111
. -
0
f
5
$:,. 0
3.5
f
0
f -
S -
0
f.
$ -
S -
0.
S 22.7
B.
S 1.3
3A
S 25t.0
H
Number
S 13:0
o
$
$.
$ 4.0
0
$ 0.2
0
$ 0.3
$ 1.6111
0
. -
$ 20
$ 10.0
_
$ 3.5
0
$
S. -
0
S
f -
S
S -
0
S -
S 8.7
.0
S 1A
S 452
Empmuro
So
S -
$ -
$
f
11 . -
A -
$ J$
f -
S
f
S
f , -.
S -
S
S -
S. -
S -
S -
S
VaryHob
Number
970 am
0
0
0
0
0
0
- at
01
0
0-
0
0
0
ol
0
0
0.0
OA
VANII Otum Fin
..
Number
S -•
- 61
f -
2
S -
0
f •
7
f -
7
f
0
f -
31
S-
1
S
6
f
0-
3
Y
.f
0
.$ •.
" 0
S - --
0
f -
0
S,
0
S -
0
S - -
S -
S -
S
Expuurs
Hm
$ •
$14.0
$ to
f.
f 1.8
f:3.0
S 2,0
$ -
f 3.5
$
S
S -
f - -
S -
S -
S .
S 2.5
S 189.9
Number
4
0
2
'0
0
0
'0
0
0
.23.5
1,5
Expmuro
*7
Extreme
f
f 8.0
.$ 0.8
$ 1.5
$
f. -
f CIA
-5.T
S - -0.7
S 43.0
Number
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
"" ' 0.
0
0
- 0
0
0
pA
0.T
-
Exposure
-
. .
.
0.3
S 0.1
S 13A
[11 Low vatue Is asset replecentent value in 2006 dollem, Value shown W found as count of aswts at fie It from the particular haunt times hich -end unit asset value.
121 Grand Total Loss value shown may Include the some assets counted multiple tines for different hazards. - - -
Um I . w...ma...w5.128
Brand TONI 31 1x1.0 I
•
• SECTIONFNE SERRANO WD Risk Assessment
5.19 SERRANO —OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND ACTIONS
The Serrano Water District (Serrano) reviewed a set 'of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed.
critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top
hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
. Serrano Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this Section
5.19.1 Capabilities Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal, capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation, planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Serrano's fiscal
capabilities that maybe applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5.19.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of Serrano are shown in Table 5.19.2 -1, which presents the existing
ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Sa't'an. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans.
Table 1
Legal and R u Cap abllit
Local
Does state
Higher Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Prohibit?
Jurisdiction
Comments
(YIN)
(Y"
Autha*ZIN)
Budding cede
NO
YES
NO
Zoning ordinance
NO
NO
YES
Subdivision ordinance or regulations
NO
NO
YES
Special purpose ordinances (floodplain
management, storm water
management, hillside or steep slope
NO
NO
YES
ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard
setback requirements) .
Growth management ordhances also called
NO
NO
Y
MW D...mw ow w soo5 -129
SECTIONFTVE
SERRANO WID
RMAssusmen
Table I
Lqal and Regulatory Capablifty
Regulate Tools (ordinances, codes, Plans)
Local
Authority
(YIN)
Does State
Prohibit?
(YIN)
Higher Level
Jurisdiction
Autboft (YIN)
Comments
'smart growth' or anti-sprawl programs)
Site plan reviewrequirernevits
NO
NO
YES
General or comprehensive Pan
NO
NO
YES
A capital Improvements Plan
YES
NO
NO
An economic development plan
YES
NO
NO
An emergency response pan
YES
YES
YES
SEIMSINIMS
A post-disaster recovery pan
NO
YES
YES
MMS
A post disaster recovery ordinance
NO
NO
NO
Real estate disclosure requirements
NO
YES
YES
0
•
•
• SECTIONME SISMANO WD
•
r 1
U
5.19.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
Risk Assessment
The following is a summary of existing departments in Serrano and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Serrano, as
shown in Table 5.19:3 -1, provides an identification of the staff personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planaers/engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or ma invade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS sldlls and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
Table 2
Administrative and Technical Capacity
StaffiPersonnel Resources
YESINO
DepardnerdlAgencg and Position
Plamier(s) or engineers) With knowledge
of land development and.land .
YES
City of Orange
management practices ,
Engineers) or professionals) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
YES
Serrano Water District
and/orhirasWcture
Planners or Engineer(s) with an
understanding of natural and/or human=
NO
caused hazards
Floodplaln manager
NO
Surveyors
YES
Out Sourced
Staff with education or expertise to assess the
YES
ERP
community's vulnerability to hazards
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or. HAZUS
NO
Scientists familiar with the hazards, of the
NO
community
Emergency manager .'
YES
Serrano Water District
Grant writers
YES..
Serrano Water DisbW Engineering Dept
D u%oamwsDZ -131
SECTIONFWE sEll MHO wa iiiskAsussment
5.19.4 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.19.4 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Serrano such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project fimding authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
Table 3
Fiscal Capability
Finandal Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/NogMn't Know)
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
No
Capital improvements prD cl funding
Serrano Water Dishict /Engineering
Department
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes, Serrano Water
DistrictlAdministration
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new
Yes
developmentsmomes
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes/ Serrano Water District!
Administralion/Board of Directors
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
No
Incur debt through private activity bonds
No
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
No
5.19.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Listed below are Serrano's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategics to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdict'ion's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff
'Um oo��uvra�astsoc5 -132
•
U
SEOTIONFIVE SERRANO WD RiskAssessment
and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan. Once developed, District staff presented them to the Serrano Board of Directors for
their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Serrano's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard
Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
5.19.6 Serrano Goals
For Serrano, following are five major goals for hazard mitigation planning purposes. The five goals are
followed up with detailed objectives and actions:
1. Minimize damages to facilities finfrastructure due to natural disasters
2.. Minimize disruptionof service due to hazard induced outages
3. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards
4. Protect communities from potential earthquake induced dam inundation
5. Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation.
The objectives and actions under each of the six goals are listed below:
A. Minimize damages to facilities / infrastructure due to natural disasters
a.. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the
effects of natural disasters.
L Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations.
ii. Keep Emergency Operations Plan up to-date
iii. Install seismic valves at critical reservoir sites
iv. Loop water sources where possible
v. Intetie supply sources where possible
vi. Construct interties with neighboring water purveyors
vii. Secure above ground assets in all buildings, booster stations, reservoirs, pressure
reducing stations, emergency interties, water systems, water reclamation Plant,
lift stations, pipelines and bridge crossings.
Dw mtiv; wa oo5 -133
SECTIONFWE SERRANO WD RiskAssessment. •
viii. Identify all major fuel pipelines;' rail transportation corridors, manufacturing
facilities, and their vulnerability relative to hazardous material releases.
b. Protect the public water supply from contamination caused by backilow or back -
siphonage in the event of an earthquake
L Continued with backilow prevention program
H. Monitor low - pressure areas in the water system
ilL Upgrade all potential hazardous potable water services with the required
backilow prevention device to prevent backpressure or back - siphonage that.could
contaminate the public water supply.
iv. Require all single -check fire systems in the District to be upgraded to a Double-
Check Detector Assembly. Single -check fire systems cannot be tested to
determine if they are working properly. The Double -Check Detector Assembly
can be tested and requires an animal test to' determine if it is functioning properly.
The water quality in fire systems has been proven not. safe for human
consumption Random tests on fire system water quality exceeded maximum
contaminant levels for potable water including iron, lead, cadmium, manganese,
and total coliform.
c. Protect potable water from contamination
i. Strictly enforce standard .separation between water infrastructure and other •
utilities
u. Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations
iii. Improve security at certain facilities and install surveillance equipment
iv. Maintain operations daily /weekly site.visit monitoring program to each facility
v. Install and maintain equipment at essential facilities
A. Upgrade SCADA system to existing sites as needed
vii. litstall emergency collection structures at each tank site to capture released water
viii. Keep Emergency Operations Plan up- to-date
ix. Review Irvine Lake Operations for potential areas of contamination
d. Protect assets from a major Earthquake event.
i. Perform a seismic study analysis for all structures and facilities, especially the
water treatment plant.
ii. Examine.the integrity of the supply' line from Irvine Lake to the water treatment
per•
iii. Update the standard specification to .comply with latest UBC seismic design
codes for structures and pipelines.
•
UW
oan,woaaLSOO5 -134
•
SECTIONFIVE SERRANO WD BiskAssemmit
iv.
Conduct routine site inspections of structures and facilities and follow -up on
structural deficiencies.
v.
Adopt Structural Design Criteria that will resist the most severe earthquake
anticipated.
e. Reduce the High Fire Threat to the Districrs facilities /infrastructure.
L
Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and
lasses due to structural firetwildfre.
ii.
Create a fire management plan outlining various impacted facilities and
vulnerabilities.
iii.
Share all ird'rashvcturestbuilding information with local, county, and state fire
agencies.
iv.
Adopt a policy for design of non - combustible facilities to reduce the threat and
impact of Wildfire on structures.
v.
Provide redundant underground communication systems for critical facilities to
insure reliability of operating systems.
vi
Provide routine maintenance around facilities to avoid the chance of fire threat
and reducing the fuel source.
•
B. Minimize disruption. of service due to hazard induced outages
a. Provide backup system for critical facilities
i.
Build redundancy into the water supply source to mitigate major structural
defects to main transmission water pipelines.
ii.
Examine the potential of securing a backup supply from the AMP
in.
Loop water sources where possible
iv.
Intertie supply sources where possible
v.
Construct interties with neighboring water purveyors
vi.
Protect facilities within flood plain areas
vii.
Place protective measures in rivers and creeks or relocate facilities out of harms
way
viii.
Install jointless pipelines in all creek crossings
ix.
Improve structural characteristics of reservoirs and pump stations; consider
flexible connections at reservoirs for seismic activity
X.
Install isolation valves at all locations when feasible
A..
Design facilities with flexible connections
xii.
Install camera and wireless communication at all facilities
•
UM
o�.�w,w oaa�lsoc5 -135
SECTIONFIVE SERRANO WD RISkAssessment
xiii. Continuing with daily site check
b. Develop new sources of supply
L Consider collecting and treating supplies from Villa Park Dam
c. Improve response time
i. Keep Emergency Response Plans up- to-date
ii. Update system maps to reflect current condition
Hi. Maintain stand-by crew for emergency repair
d. Work with the water community in Orange County to examine the benefits of storage of
water in Irvine Lake for regional benefit
C. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards
a. Develop'a comprehensive approach.to reduce damage and loss due to human caused
hazards
i. Continue and expand cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human
caused hazards.
ii. Continue and expand education for administrative and field personnel on passible
•
human caused hazards.
Hi. Survey and improve site fencing.and other forms of hardening facility deterrence
iv. Improve response time to alarm and emergency events
V. Modify SCADA .system, when feasible, to 'look for additional parameters of
operation that may indicate problem areas
b. Increase the knowledge of employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance
handling procedures and terrorism awareness.
L Continue and expand safety training for all personnel who may come in contact
with said materials
ii. Conduct additional workshops for awareness of hazardous materials incidents for
all employees
in. Examine opportunities for on -line water quality sensing relative to potential
human induced contamination, and implement if feasible
D. Protect communities from potential earthquake induced dam inundation
a. Update water reservoir dam failure study for Irvine Lake
i. Advise local agencies of flooding from potential dam failure
ii. Contract for an updated inundation study, if needed
•
osu.�axw«i.outisoc5 -136
n
U
Cj
SECTIONFIVE
SERRANO WD
Risk Assessment
M. Provide copies of updated study to appropriate agencies
b. Provide NIMS and SEMS training for all existing or new employees per EPA guidelines.
c. Conduct semi - annual emergency response training exercises for staff
d. Participate and coordinate with WEROC and other member agencies in hazard
preparedness.
e. Insure sufficient equipment, materials, and communications hardware to respond and
recover from natural hazards.
f. Develop mutual aid response teams, trainin& and exercises for natural hazards with local
member agencies.
E. Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation.
a. Educate the public regarding natural and man -made hazards and opportunities for
mitigation actions to protect local residents and businesses.
b. Prepare an emergency response preparedness brochure for . the local community
identifying all types of natural hazards.
c. Promote a partnership between the local, county, and state governments: to identify,
prioritize, and implement . mitigation actions.
d. Promote hazard mitigation in the business community.
e. Use the public.media to cover mitigation activities. .
f. Publish newsletters for the public and business leaders with information regarding
hazardous mitigation-of natural and man-made hazards.
g. Develop full cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused hazards.
MM
ow..,a%Q"ww5 -137
SEETIOUNE SERRANO WD BlskAssessm dt
Table 5.19.1 Serrano Lae Estimation Table
Huard
Ilenr>
WST
RES
WTP
PS
PR8
W
SC
AOM
LS
WNW
WILL
-DIEMER
OC46P8
PROMET
'Pp
WWTP•
SOCWA
WWTP.
CCSD
L84CSD
PWL
WWL
Total Las
Vsue ryism
p
EeMgaks
Number
.t10
EM
30A
0
10A
2A-
0
0.2
0
0.3
0
00
0
3.0
1
&A
U
0
2S
2
250A
0
250
. 0
12A
- 0
120
0
20A
0
2560
100
0
LO
0.3
U
. OA
Exposure
S
S, .•
S.
S 0.3
S -
S 10.9
HIS
Humber
2
2
1
2
T
0
0
0
/
0
0
0
0
0
0
. OA
Erpowro
M
S 250
S 60A
$10.0
S 4.0
S 0.8
S 0.3
S. 1.2
S -
S -
S. +
S 3.6.
S
S' -.
.
S -
S
S -
S -IS
•
S 12A
S -
S 118.2
Fxbe
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q.
0
-0
0
0
0
. 0.0
.0
Er0auro
S -
S -
S -
S -
S -
S. -is
S -.
Flood
100
500
0
'0
0
0
2
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
.6
- OA
um
S •
S -
S -
S -
S -
S -
S .1.2
S . -.
S -
S, -
S , -
S -
S -
S -
S -
S -
S -
S -
S 4A
S -
S 5.8
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
OR
OA
Ecposuro
S -
S -
S -
S
-
S •.
S ..•
'S -
S-
S. -.
S 3
S
S -
S-
S -
S -
S -
S -
S OA
S
S 4.3
Land#Ida,
Humber
1
0
1
0
01
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0.7
0.0
Pmuro
M
S -
S 300
S -
E 2.0
S O2
S •
S -
S -IS
-
S •
'E -
S"
S
-
S
S -
S -
S -
S 0.7
S -
S 32.9
LiquAkclbn
kinder
HE
Number
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
.0
&papa
S •
S -
S1DA
S •
S --
S -
S 12
If -IS.
-
S.
S. 5
S ,.. -
S ,-
S
S. -
S
S ,
S
-
S -
S 14.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fapmo
M
S -
S -
S -
S -
S
S -
S •
S -is
-
S -
S -
S -
S r
S. •
S •
S
-
S •
S fA
S -
S L4
Very Hp
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0-
0
0
0'
'0'0
0
0
0
0.0
UPON"
M
S -
S -
9 -
S
S -
S -
S ,•
S -.
S -
s.. -
W9dIN IStmctoro Fus
Hp
per.
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0.
1
0
0
1
0
E Pane
M
s -s
-e
s
S -S
-s
-f.
-S
-s3.6
3. -s
-S
-S
S •'S
S 0.85
S 4.1
bar
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Esp M
M
S
S 30.0
S -
S
S
-
S 0.5
S. -
S -
S.
S -
S -
S
It -
S
S
S
S
$ 2.7
S
S 85.3
Extra
ber
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
poeuro
s
i
s-
E -
s
-
$.
-
It
It
s
s
s
s
s
Grarm Tote1 I S 226.0 1
171 Loss value b lust roplecemard value In 2000 dollars. Value shown b Taunt as wont of assets n dale from the padkular haurd Mmes hloh.end unit ascot value.
r4 Grand Total Loss value shown may Includ$ Me same aawts courdatl multiple time for different hazards.
Er`
o-...- m.u.a.a5 -138
• SECTIONFIVE SMWD Risk Assessment
5.20 SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT — OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND
ACTIONS
•
The South Coast Water District (SCWD) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including
detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposurelloss estimates to help identify
the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction See Section .4 for additional details.
SCWD Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.20.1 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities: The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already In place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides SCWD's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5.20.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of SCWD are shown in Table 5.20.2 -1, which presents the existing
ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of SCWD. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include: the SCWD's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management. ordinances, site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans.
Table 5.20.2 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
11M oa.., a JWADC oswDOS -139
Local
state
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Jurisdiction
Authority
comments '
(YesMo)
(Yea/ NO)
(Yes/No)
A. BuKuV code
No
Yes
No
B. Zoningoidnnince
No
No
Yes
C. Subdvi W ordinance or regulations
No
No
Yes
D. Speaal purpose onfinances {lloodplain
mange** stonnwatermanagemerd,
No
Yes
Yes
hillside or steep slope ordinances, sddfire
ordinance% hazard setback requirements)
11M oa.., a JWADC oswDOS -139
SECTIONFWE SMWD RiskAssesstent •
Table 5.20.2- 1(continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability
5.20.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in SCWD and their responsibilities related to hazard .
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of SCWD, as
shown in Table 5.20.3 -1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as plaimers(engineen with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
o..�rnson De5=140
•
•
Local
State
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances; codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Authority
JAuth ority city
Comments
(YesINO)
(YesI/No)
(YeslNO)
E. Growth management ordinances (also
called 'smart growth' or anti- sprawl
programs)
No
No
Yes
F. Site plan review requirements
No
No
Yes
G. General or comprehensive plan
No
No
Yes'
N. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No ,
I. An economic development plan
Yes
I An emergency response plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
SEMSINIMS
K: A post4sasW recovery plan
No
Yes
Yes
NIMS
L. A postisaster recovery ordinance
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
No
Yes
Yes
N. Waste Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
State Water Resources CoControl ol
.
-
Board
5.20.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in SCWD and their responsibilities related to hazard .
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of SCWD, as
shown in Table 5.20.3 -1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as plaimers(engineen with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
o..�rnson De5=140
•
•
• SECTIONFIVE SMwD RIOAssessment
•
Table 5.20.3-1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
StafVPersonnel Resources
Yesmo
Department/Agency and Position
A. Planner(s) or engineers) with knowledge
of land development and land
Yes
City of Dana Point, Laguna Beads & San Clemente
management pull=
B. Engineers) or pmfessional(s) trained in
construction pradioes related to buildings
Yes
South Coast Water District
and/or Infrastructure
C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an
understanding of naWral andfor. human-
caused hazards.
No
D. Floodplain manager
No
E. Surveyors
Yes
Out Sourced
F. Staff with education or expertise to assess
Yes
ERP
the corm urWs wtneraft to hazards
.
G. Personnel slaled in GIS andfor HAMS
Yes
South Coast Water District Engineer. Dept
H. Scientists famiiar with the hazards of the
No
coiomurfdy
I. Emergency manager
Yes
South Coast Water District
J. Grant writers
Yes
South Coast Water District/ Engineering Dept
5.20.4 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.20.4 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to SCVJD such as community
development block grunts; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to inctu debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
coo, ISOaaaso05 -141
SECTIONFWE SMWD RIMASMSMent •
Table 5.20.41
Fiscal Capability
5.20.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are SCWD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one.or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the SCWD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. '
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long -
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the SCWD's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, SCWD representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard-related goats, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. Once developed, SCWD staff presented them to the SCWD Board of Directors for their
approval.
ooa.�mn,�e.ca.os�soc5 -142'
•
•
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use.
(YeslNo/Don't Know)
A.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
No
B.
Capital improvements project funding
South Coast Water District /Engineering
Department
C.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes, South Cast Water
Distrid/Administration
D.
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes/Scuth Coast Water District
E
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new
Yes/South Coast Water District
deMopmerdsihomes
F.
Incur debtthrough general obligation bonds
Yes/ South Coast Water District/
AdministragonlBoard of Directors
G.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes for Revenue Bands
H.
Incur debt through private aW* bonds
No
I.
Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas
No
5.20.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are SCWD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one.or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the SCWD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. '
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long -
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the SCWD's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, SCWD representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard-related goats, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. Once developed, SCWD staff presented them to the SCWD Board of Directors for their
approval.
ooa.�mn,�e.ca.os�soc5 -142'
•
•
• SECTIONFIVE SMWD .6isk'As'sessieent
[1
0
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals,: objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by SCWD's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard
Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Table. 5.20.5 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
DD..mneodaai 5 -143
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction'
Agency Name
Policies,
Point of Contact
(Mission/Function)
Regulations,
Name, Address,
Comments
Funding, or
Phone, Email
Support
- Facilitate
Hinder
.
Practices
..
San Diego Regional
Water Quality Board
Joanne Lim (858)
6375583
`(DRWOCS)
Carl Schwing 200
Carrfamis Coastal
Oceangate,
Commission South
70� Floor
Coast District
Long Beach, Ca
90802
City of Dana Point
Brad Fowler (949)
2483554
Joe ChNueter
(949) 497 -0338
505 Forest Avenue
City of Laguna Beach
Laguna Beach,
Cal'domle 92651
USA
(949) 4973377
(949) 497 -0771 fax
A.J Howard'
(949) 3675200
City of San Clemente
City of San Clemente
70D Avenida
Presidio, San
Clemente, CA 92672
DD..mneodaai 5 -143
SECTIONFIVE
5.20.6 SCWD Goals
SMWD
Goal 3: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Disruption
Objective:
1. Improve site safety and security.
2. Improve response time.
Actions:
Risk Assessment
1. Continue implementation of Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations.
2. Continue with improvement of site fencing and barriers.
3. Improve reliability of communication throughout the district.
4. Continue with the implementation of security systems.
5. Continue with the implementation of the SCADA project.
6. Establish Security Policies and Procedures Manual.
Goal 2: Reduce Water Losses and Improve Water Reliability during Disaster Events
Objective:
1. Reduce reservoir water losses.
2. Seek additional water resources.
Actions:
1. Complete Ground Water Recovery Facility.
2. Complete seismic evaluation of district reservoirs.
3. Implement URS. study recommendations.
4. Complete installation of Reservoir Management Systems (RMS).
5. Establish interim migration procedures for JRWSS pipeline breaks.
6. Establish protocol during loss of SCADA. .
Goal 3: Minimize Sewer Interruptions during Disaster Events
Objective:
1. Establish emergency by -pass for Server Beach Interceptor Tunnel and lift stations.
Actions:
1. Place,protective measures in rivers, creeks, flow control and beaches.
2. Purchase additional by-pass equipment.
3. Conduct emergency generator monthly testing to insure reliability.
4. Implement dual force mains were applicable.
5. Establish protocol during loss of SCADA
oa,,e�nar,amasoc5 -144
r] L
•
•
sEcnmiFxVE 3MwO
Table 5.20.1 SCWD Lou Estimation Table
Btsk Assessment
Natud r
dun#
WST
RES WTP p3
PRE
w
SC
ADM LS www WELL
D16MER
OGePS
POMET
pp
WWTP.
SOCWA
WwM
OCSD
-
LSACSD-
MI.
WWL
Talal Lon
Veluslll$M
p L o
Eaellqusq
Mode mM
a
to
0
50.0 10.0 U-
0 0 0
B.2
0.
03 1
01
3A
0
1B- -OA SA - I M 250.0
1 .- 0 0 - 0 0
$A
0
1210 1
0
IZA .
0
10.0
0
2SOA IDA to
0 0.3
OA
0.0
paWro(SW
E. •
f •
f -
f -
f -
f •
E -
-0-4
E 3.0
E -
E .. -
E . .-
E -
E -
-
i -
.
i - -
S -
i -
-i -
S 0.3
3 -
E 3.3
i60
tsar
1
1
2
16
-
1
1
=
0
0
0
0
25.8
0.
PoWWIO (SM)
$195,0
f 30.0
f
f21,0
f o.d
E /.8-
f -
S12:0
f $.8
E -.6R.
:E .. •
'$ .. -
E
i -
i -.
E -1$
-1$
-
E 25.91S
-
f 903.1
ExIm
NuMer
o
0
0
� 0
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
Q.0
Eapowro ISM)
8
f -
f -
f -
f -
f -_
f -
S -
E -
E .-
E .-
E -
E -
i -
i -
S
i -
It •
'3 JS
3
Flood
400
500
r
1
Q
0
0
-0
0
- 0
0
D
0-
/.1
- o.
EzporuelSM)
S 13,0
3 -
E -
f -
E -
f -
E -
E 8.0
E OR
f �-
E' -
E- - -
E -
i -
i -
i -
E :
i •
f
E 20.8
INmeer
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-
'0
- b
0
0
0
0.
D
-0
0
OA
EzW#Yro (S 1
E -
f -
s -
E
s -
s
-
a 3.0
' � 0,8
.
--
s •.
s
s -
s
s:
4 a
LandsOde
Num0x
6
0.
0
3
/
0
0
1
0
0
- 0
0
-0
0
0
0
Erpnuro BW
f 78,0
.f -
f -
f B4O
f.
f 1.2
E -
5 -
S, 0A
E
-
3..
E -
E •.
3
i -
i -
S -
I
E
$ 89.0
Liguffu0on
Mode
'
H
Numeer
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
Etpwuro(SM)
S 13.01S
-
E -
f 4.0
f -
f •.
f
E 8.0
,f . -
; 6,0
E. -
f -
;
-
i
S . -
i -is
-is
E.
28.0
NYmtar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0-
0.0
EapuuelfM)
S -
S -
S
3 -
f
S -.
E -
E -
3. -.
-
E -
E •
E -
i '.
i
i •
i
i -
-
f
Very HID
Nu
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0.0
.0
EapownI M)
S
f... -
f -1V
-
f
f
i -
f.
r
E- -
S
E. -
E -
H
i .•
8 --
f.
S
E.Fin
HID
Fxtre
Numbu
1
0
0
1
0
0
.E
0
0
D
0
.2
OAI.
13.0
f
5 -
3 -
E -
E' oA
E
E -
E. 0.4
E -
E. •
S. -
E
i - -
i
It -
i •
E 0.2
E -
f - 13.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
-0
0
0.2
OA
paprolSW
s
S -
$ -
E -
4-
-
S .
_ -
a -
s .13
-
-
s
a -
s . -
s o.z
s
s 28.2
moor
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
b-
0
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0.0
- A
Wro(
'.
E -
E
�-
E
.
-13
-
Is -is
i
-
S
E.
(11 toss Yalu# Is asset replacement value In 2006 doltam Value shown Is found as count of assets at risk from Ih# particular hazard tines hjoh�a unit asset iaiue,
(21 Onnd Totsi Loss Yalu* Mown may Include the same kaa#IS counted multiple time for different hazards.
' o.�.wY.mooro5.14S
SECTIONFNE SOMA RiskAssessment
5.21 SOCWA — OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND ACTIONS.
South Orange County Wastewater Authority ( SOCWA) reviewed a set ofjurisdictional -level hazard maps
including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposurelloss estimates to
help identify the top hazards threatening,theirjurisdiction .See Section 4 for additional details.
SOCWA Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.21.1 CapabilRyAssessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan ideri fies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal, capabilities. This includes a summary of departments.and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning: The second part of the Assessment provides SOCWA's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources: to implement identified mitigation
action items. .
511.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and`ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities. of SOCWA are shown in Table 521.3 -1, which presents the existing
ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of SOCWA. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include: SOCWA's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances,
special "purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans,. capital
improvement planis, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure
plans. .
Un
000.oem,woam�soc5 -146
•
•
• SECTIONFIVE . soCWA RlskAssessment
•
•
5.21.3 Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.2131
Legal and latory Ca abili
Local
State
OdrerLevei
Regulataryr Tools (ordinances, codes. plans)
Authority
uth
Jurisdiction
Authority
Comments
(Yesillo)
(YesNo)
(Yes/No)
Local dues
O.QFA
A. Building code
No
Yes
Yes
A.QM.D.
Some Exceptions Apply
HCA a State/County
B. Zoning ordinance
No
No
Yes
Coastal Commission'
C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations
No
No
Yes
Local cities
County of Orange
County of Orange -
Army Corps of Engineers
D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain
i1S FG
management, storm water management
No
Yes
Yes
Regional Water Quality Control Board
tonal W
hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire
WPA
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
OCFA
CDF/ Forest Service
E Growth management ordinances (also
Local cities
called "smart growth" oranti-sprawl
No
No
No
CountyofOrange
programs)
OCFA
Local dues
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
No
County of Orange
'
OCFA
Permits
G. General or comprehensive plan
No
No
No
RWQCB
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No
Habitat Protection
LAFCO
1. An economic development plan
No
No
No
SEMS
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
NIMS
WEROC
K A poeWsacier recovery plan
No
No
Yes
NIMS
o�aervxoam�soo5 -147
SECTIOIFIVE SOMA
Risk Assessment •
Table 5.213 -1
L egal and Regulatory Ca abili
Staff/PersonnelResources
Local
State
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authorftj
JA��
Comments
(yesMo)
(YesRto)
B. Engineer(s) or
(Yes/No)
L A post-disaster recovery law
No
No
No
related to buildings and/or
M. Real estate diisclosure requirements
No
No
No
N. Waste Discharge Requirement
No
Yes
No
State Water Resource Control Board
5.21.4 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in SOCWA and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation. efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of
SOCWA, as shown in Table-5.21.4-1, provides an identification of the " personnel, and department
resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation 'section of the Plan. Specific
resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with
knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers tramed.in construction
practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with
hazards in the community.
Table 5.21.4 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff/PersonnelResources
yesft
DepartnemlAgency and Position
A. Planner(s) or engineer(s)
with knowledge of land
Yes
District coordinates with outside consultants
development and land
management practices
B. Engineer(s) or
professionals) trained in
District coordinates with outside consultants
construction practices
Yes
In-house and Consultants
related to buildings and/or
Engineering Department
Infrastructure
C. Planners or Engineer(s) with
an understanding of natural
Yes
District coordinates with outside consultants
and/or human- caused
Consultantwith VA & ERP
hazards
D. Floodplain manager
Yes
County of Orange
o�n�m.oevsoce5 -148
r�
U
•
• SECTIONME SOMA HISkAssessment
•
Table 5.21.4.1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
StafflPersonnel Resources
Yes/No
DeparbuenUAgency and Position
E.. Surveyors
Yes
Outside consullant
F. Staff with education or
expertise to assess the
Yes
County of Orange- WEROC
community's vulnerabTty to
hazards
G. Personnel sidled In GIS
Yes
Outside Consultant
and/or HAMS
County
iversity
H. Scientists familar with the
Yes
Reg oral
Regional
hazards of the oommunity
Calech
USGS
Director of Operations
I., Emergency manager
Yes
RiskJSafety Department
J. Grant writers
No
K. Other -lab Staff / Specialist
Yes
Internal
46 "4:
om.o�,�eonoe\sod5 -149
SECTIONFIVE SOCWA HISRASSOSSmeM •
5.21.5 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.21.5 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to SOCWA such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
5.21.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are SOCWA's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, SOCWA has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including SOCWA's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances_ In addition, SOCWA representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The LPG member was Dan Wheeler. Once developed, SOCWA staff presented them to the
SOCWA Board of Directors for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by SOCWA's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. •
. ooa:�.MVecaamsccS -150
Table 5.22.5 -1
Fiscal Capability
MandelResources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(YwWolDw%Know)
A
Community Development Block Grants (CDBGj
No
B.
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
C.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes
D.
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
E.
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new
devebpamMomes
No
F.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
No
G.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
No
H.
Incur debt through private activity bonds
No
I.
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
No
J.
Grants
Yes
5.21.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are SOCWA's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, SOCWA has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including SOCWA's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances_ In addition, SOCWA representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan. The LPG member was Dan Wheeler. Once developed, SOCWA staff presented them to the
SOCWA Board of Directors for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by SOCWA's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. •
. ooa:�.MVecaamsccS -150
• SECTIONFIVE OCWA Risuussessmem
5.21J SOCWA MMGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
•
SOCWA reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility infmnation
and localized potential hazard exposure/ioss.estymates to help identify the. top hazards threatening their
jurisdiction. Since SOCWA is a regional agency providing the underlying support for a number of the
agencies, the overall goals and objectives for the wastewater functions were included in the regional
Section 5.4. See Section 4 for additional details on the hazards.
SECMKFIVE socwn kisknssessmeet
Table 121.1 SOCWA Lama Estimation Table
NmrdType
Reeve
W8T RES
WTP
PS
PR8
Ell
S0
ADM
LS WWTP
WELL'
DIBNER
OC41PS
PRSAV
PP
WWTP-
SOMA
WWTP•
0050
LOCSO
"A.
WAIL
Total Lae
Vahn[5}SN
ep ecnnnn c
EaMOuake
a
Number
13A 3010
0 0
1010
0
210
0
0.2
0
OA
0
0.6
0
3A
0
010 5,0 1
0
310 2504
0 ' 0
7510
-0
1210 1210
0
3010
250.0
0
1010 I . 14 010
0.0 12.1
Egzaum
s -
E -
f -
s •
S -
S .
.s. -
s •.s..•
s ...-
s -
-
s -.E
-
s 30.0
S. -.S
-
E -
E 6.1
$ 38.1
H
Number
0.
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
- 0
0
.0
0
3
0
0
0.0
.6
Eapown,
N
s -is
-is
-
s 4.01s
-
s -
s -
s 3A
E -
$ -
$ AS
-1$
-
E -
S JS
. 9D.0
S -
s ` -
s -
E 12,81$
109.8
.
Were,
Number
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
.0
OA
EKPOmm
N
s -
S
s
s
s.-
s -
s -
3 -
s -
E -
s r
E ..
s
It -
s
s -
s
s -
s -
s -
E
cd
100
500
Number
0
0
II
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
pmua
S,
E -
E
$ -
s.
=
s -13
s OA
s -is
-
s -
E
It -
s -
E -
E •
$ -
$ r
s
E 410
6m
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OA
610
5.
um N
f
s -
$ -
s.
E -
s -
s -
s 3.0
-
$
s -
s -
s -
s -
E -
s -
E -
E -
E 25
s 8.5
Lendable
bf
D
0
0
'0
0
0
3
0::
6.2
um
It
s -
s -is
s -�
$
$
s -
s
E -
s
S -is
s
s. -IS
9010
E -
E. -is
.
5 3.11s
83.1
LigfBmilon
HO
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
un
E -S
-E
•.f
s -s
f -E
s -E
-
E. -E
-S
s -s
-s
-s
s
s -f
mbar
0
0
0
0
0
.0
Evpwum
$
s�-
s -
s -
�E -
s -
E -
s -
E -
s -
s-
s
E -
f -
E -
E
s -
E
E -
E 09
E 0.8
VeryFi§
Mumtiar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
Exposure
$
s -
s -
s -
s -
E -
E -
E -is
E-
s -
-
s. -
S -
E
s -
s -
E -
s -
'
s
INIIlel54uptun Fin
Hq
Ease.
Numb"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
42
Exposure
E
s -
S -
s
s -
E -
s -
S. -
a -'S
-
E, -
S_ - -
_S -
f
S
S -.
s -
s -
E -
E 2.1
s 2.1
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
3.2
Exposure
s -
E
-
s
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
- DA
"
ft"we
a
s
s
-s
E.s
s
E
E
s
. .
s
(1] loaf value Is asset rept000ment value M 2006 dollars. Value shown Is found as count of assets at risk from the parthcular hazard these high-and unitacsat value. '
[21 Grand Total Loss value shown may include the same assets counted multiple Lmas for different hezardf.
OW W_.aw.mum5452
• i
wane i awe 1 a �w.e r
•
• SFCTIONFNE TRASUCO 81skAssessment
5.22 TRABUCO — OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
Trabuco Canyon Water District (Trabuco) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including
detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposuretloss estimates to help identify
the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details.
Trabuco Water District Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.22.2 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for. implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated. to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in .place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Trabuco's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
5.22.3 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
,The legal and regulatory capabilities of Trabuco are shown in Table 5.22:3 -1, which presents the:existing
. ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Trabuco. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances; site plan review, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans.
�J
Table 5.22.3 -1
1 and Reou ato ry Ca ab `
Local
Does State
Other Level
Regulatory'rods (ordinances, codes, plans)'
Authority
Regulate?
Authoft
Comments
(YeAo)
(Yes/N0)
(Yes/No)
Local titles
CA Division of Dams
Building code
No
No
Yes
.C.FA
k.QM.D.
30rne Exceptions Apply.
Dounty
Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
Yes
Nty of Rancho Santa
argarita
ubdivision ordinance or regulations
Yes
No
Yes
Local cities
oa,.,,am+ soaosreco5 -153
SECTIONFIVE
TRABUCO
BiskAssessmeet
Table 5.22.3 -1
L and Regulatory Ca ity
Lml
Does State
Other Level
Jurisdiction
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Regulate?
Comments
(YesMo)
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
County of Orange
County of Orange
rmy Corps of Engineers
Special purpose ordinances (fioodplain
SFWS/CDFG
management stormwater management, hillside
Regional Water Quality
or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances,
Yes
Yes
Control Board (RWQCB)
hazard setback requirements)
SFWS/CDRG
Resource Agencies. .
CFA
ocal cities
Growth management ordinances (also called
unty of Orange
mart growth' or anti. sprawl programs)
es
es
es
oothll Specific Plan
CO .. .
ocalcities
unty of Orange .
Site plan review.requirsements
Yes
No
fes
3CFA .
alt. Legislative Bills and
mpositioons
CWD Master Plan
General or Comprehensive plan
fes
Yes
Yes
'CWD Urban Water
anagement Plan
capital Improvements plan
No
No
No
rCWD CIP
An economic development plan
No
No
No
oval cities
DHS/EPA
EMS
An emergency response plan
Yes
fes
Yes
IMS
ROC
post - disaster recovery plan
No
TIVIS
ocal cities
post - disaster recovery ordinance
No
County of Orange
tate of California
s co .",*.o. oc5 -154
0
•
•
• SFCTIONFM TRASUCO RiskAssess[neat
•
•
Table 5.22.34
al and Regulatory Ca ity
Local
Does State
Other Level
Jurisdiction
Regulatory Toils (ordinances codes, plans)
Autiarily
RegulateT
Authority
CanmeMs
(YeAo)
(Yewwo)
(YeslNo)
.E.MA
State Realtor Board,
Real .estate disclosure requirements
Yes
Yes
40
Districts
etrolink & Caltrans
No
No
40
Water Resources
aste Discharge RequiremeMs
No
Yes
40
Control Board
EPA
A. VuinerablityAssessment
Yes
Yes
No
CA DHS
B. Air Quality- AOMD
No
Yes
.Yes
Depending onproject
location andrequirements.
Em
oce.��, a Cuosi§oc5 -15i
SECTIONFIVE
TRABUCO
5.22.4 Administrative and Technical Capacity
Risk tsenineat
The following is a summary of existing departments in Trabuco and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Trabuco, as
shown in Table 5.22.4 -1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources
available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
floodplain manages, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the
community.
Table 5.22.4 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity.
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes/No
I DepartmerWAgency and Posffion
A. Planner(s) or ehgineer(s) with knowledge
of land development and land
Yes
District Engineer and outside consultants
management pTqqn
B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
District Engineer and outside consultants
and/or Infrastructure.
C. Planners or Engineers) with an
understanding of natural and/or human-
Yes
District coordinates with outside consultants
caused hazards
D. Fioodpiain ninager
Yes
County of Orange
Sl�s Department
E. Surveyors
Yes
Outside consultant
F. Staff with education or expertise to assess
Yes
County of Orange, Emergency Response Plan,
the community's vulnerability to hazards
SherhTs Dept, Fire Chbef
MWDOC
G. Personnel stalled in GIS and/or HAWS
Yes
Center for Demographics Research
Outside Consultant
County
H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the
Yes
Orange County Fire Autho*
community
Outside Consultants
Local University and Non Profit Research Centers
I. Emergency manager .
Yes
MWDOC WEROC Emergency Coordinator
I Grant writers
Yes
Engineering Department
K Other- Lab Specialist
Yes I
Contract Laboratories, Neighboring Water Districts
L Other- Lab Staff
Yes I
Districts Laboratory, Lab Technician
��' n�an,wo�sawoo5 -lib
0
•
•
• SEURNFIVE TRABUCO Risk Assessment
J
5.22.5 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.22.5 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Trabuco. such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding, authority to. levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
5.226 Local Mitigation Gapability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Trabuco's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's. current capabilities
assessment.* These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement. of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes,* and ordinances. In addition, District's representatives met with consultant
staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they
related to the overall Plan. Once developed, District's staff presented them to the Trabuco Board of
Directors for their approval .
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Trabuco's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials; and local citizens.
MM o....eeo mmw5 -157
Table 5.22.5 -1
Fiscal Capability
Finaaciat Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(YeslNo/Don't Know)
K
Community Development Black Grants (CDBG)
No
L
Capital Irnprovements profectfund!ng
Yes
M.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
No
N.
Fees for water, sewer, gas; or electric service
Yes(water
and sewer)
0.
tmpactfees for homebuyers or developers for new
devebpmentaliorries
Yes
P..
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
Q.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes
R.
Incur debt through private activity bonds
Don't Know
S.
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
Yes
T.
Other - Grants ' i
. Yes
5.226 Local Mitigation Gapability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Trabuco's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where
appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's. current capabilities
assessment.* These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement. of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes,* and ordinances. In addition, District's representatives met with consultant
staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they
related to the overall Plan. Once developed, District's staff presented them to the Trabuco Board of
Directors for their approval .
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Trabuco's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials; and local citizens.
MM o....eeo mmw5 -157
SIU101IFM 'TRA13UCO RiskAssessinent •
5.22.7 Trabuco Canyon WD Goals
GOAL: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Terrorist Acts and Vandalism
OBJECTIVE:
1. Increase site security at facilities
2. Increase local authority response time
ACTIONS:
Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations
Install razor wire around site perimeter
Install additional security measures at facility access points
Improve lock system
Install surveillance and lighting equipment
Install additional alarms
Keep emergency response plan up- tadate and coordinate with local fire and sheriff authorities
.Expand SCADA system monitoring
Add laboratory sampling and analyses for unregulated compounds recommended by EPA or AW WA
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
District constructs site improvements as respective facilities are scheduled for replacement or •
refurbishment. Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget processor
available through financial assistance programs.
GOAL: Reduce Risk of Loss of Water Service Following a Hazard
OBJECTIVE:
E. Reduce reservoir water losses
F. Maintain or Increase available water supplies to system
ACTIONS:
Evaluate water. tanks for structural stability and seismic activity
Install flexible couplings and seismic valves at reservoir sites
Loop water sources where passible
Evaluate existing interties with neighboring water purveyors and upgrade or improve
. •
Um
o.,emasoa5 =158
• SECTIONME TRA13UCO RMAssessment
AVIPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Contract for engineering studies for site-specific. recommendations for structural and seismic
improvements. Acquire funding to install seismic improvements. Continue to coordinate with neighboring
districts for interties.
GOAL: Protect Imported Water Reliability and Increase Storage
OBJECTIVE:
Access additional sources of emergency water supply
Increase Emergency Potable Water Storage
ACTIONS:
Coordinate with IRWD and perform studies for treatment of Irvine Lake Water
Coordinate with neighboring water districts for regional water supply and storage projects
Construct new storage tanks.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
• District will contract for engineering studies to evaluate additional treatment of Irvine Lake emergency
water, and coordinate with neighboring water districts to prioritize and implement projects on a regional
basis. District will contract for engineering studies to evaluate system hydraulics and emergency water
storage needs.
GOAL: Provide Quick. and Accurate System Information
OBJECTIVE:
Provide up to date record drawings and facility operational manuals
Provide immediate access to information to operations, management, and engineering
ACTIONS:
Install new software and hardware for accessing system infrastructure and manuals
Install new GIs system for emergency response and coordination with other agencies
Procure new computer Hardware for field emergency use
H4I.EMENTATION STRATEGY:
Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or available through
• financial assistance programs.
MD.&.. %4.W isoc5 -I59
SECTIONFIVE TRABUCO RMAssessInem
GOAL: Upgrade Existing Water Transmission Main
OBJECTIVE:
Structurally upgrade and improve existing water transmission main to withstand substructure or
foundational degradation, soil corrosion, and seismic activity.
ACTIONS:
Install new structural supports and replace unstable foundation and soils where necessary
Relocate sections to more seismically or stable locations, if necessary. Evaluate site conditions for
corrosive materials or unsuitable native soil conditions.
R%4PLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or available through
financial assistance programs. Contract for engineering studies for site - specific recommendations for
structural and seismic improvements.
oow�®nt�aasamisuc5 -I60
3
SECTANFIVE TRASUCC
Table 5.12 -1 Tnbm Lou Estimation Table
RMASSOSSMOUt.
0
•
Heard r
Imma
WST RES
WTP
PS
PRS EG SC.
ADM' IS
WWV
WELL
IMEMER
OC4S PS
PR"ET
PP
wwm.
40CWA
wm
OCSD
Ls-0CBD
PWL
WY7L
Tataluff
Value 111 SM
oanse as
Earthquake
Modem
4
10,0 30.0
8 2
f0A
1
20
12
Od 0.0 OA.
8 b 1
.16 -
1
OA - 5.0 - 113
8 1 3
250.0
p"
SSA.
o
12.0
0
120
0
30,0
-0.
250.0
0
f0A
1A
OS
0
2 .7
0.0
to
FN!
s 104.0
s 60A
s10A
s24A
S 1.6
s 1.5
s OA
S 3.0,
s 3,2
s 5A
$10.0
-
s -
s
s -
S. -
S -
S. 26.7
S -
S 250.1
HO
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
-
1
0
- 0
0
0
0.0
e CSL9
s •
s -
s
S
s •
s
s. --
s .
S •,
S •.
S -
s.. -
S •.
_
s
s -.
s
S -
s -is
04
s
Number
0
0
0
- 0
.
0
a
D
0
.- 0
0
0
0
0
A
DA
Exposure (SMI
It
6
s •
s -
s
•
s
S
- .
t
s •
s
-
S •.
S
$ -'S
S
Hood
loo
Number
0
1
0
0
0
-0
0
1
0.0
Expdum(SM)
S
S
S1OA
S 8.0
S •
tl
S
-
Num r
o
0
0
0
0
D
p
0
o
p
- 0
0
. 0
0
oA
•
s
S
S •.
•.s
•
s
-.
's •.s
•.
-s
-
S -
S 0.2
S -
S. 0.2
Landsnds
Number
2
o
4
o
o
-
o
p
o
0
- 0
0.0
Expeeure (SMj
S 28A
S 30A
s
s BA
S
s 0.8
S .•
S -•
s' 1S
S
s. -
S -
s -.
S
-
s
S -is
-is
-
S. 80.5
L1gsNasttan
Made
IN
umber
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
0
� 0
0
- 0
0,
O
OA
0
Expdum (AdJ
S
$ AS
Js
s -s..•
•.
s' -s.
s
S.s-
....•s
s
-5.
S
t
S
Number
o
o-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
oA
faposun(SM)
S
S
S
S
S• -
s
s.
E.
-
s
-.S
-.s..
-
s .•
s +S-
-
S
-
S
Very Hqh
Number.
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
0
0
0
0-
0
0
a
0-
0
0
0.0
DA
peaniilll
s
It
It
s
s
s �•s�.•6.
s -Ss
S.
s
_
It
.
It
S
•.S
•E
•S
Wptlll budun Hn
H
umbm
2
0
0
0
0'-
- 0
1
� 0
0
0�
0
0
oA
poaua (SM)
S 28A
$ -•
S
s
s GA
s
s
$ -
s oA
s
5
S- ,
S
-
s •
s -
S •
S -
.
S 2.7
5.
s 33.0
umber
0
0
0
0
. 1
1
0'
0.
2
., 1
0
0
D
p
- 0
0
0
to
OA
POeaa(sbq
s •.
s
s -
s
$ DAIS
0.8
s -•
s -
s 0.8
s SA
s •-
8'
s-
s •-
s -'S
S
S-
s .0.4
Number
1
0
0
D
01
01
0
0
0
. p
0
a
0
p
- 0'
0
0
1,3
0.
ExPmun, sSaO
$ 130
s
-.
s
Ts-
S
3
s
S'-
.
(1) Loss value is stet reptscament veha in 2008 do%M Vahre shown Is toun4 as count of uvula at Ask here the particular hazard times ypy4ng unit asset vahn.
[21 Grand Total Lose value shown may Include the some assets counted muDlplatlmas for dHbnnt hazardw ..
aa
e.>.,.avw«em5.161
Vnna TOIW LS . aoaa l'
SECTIONFIVE
TUSTIN
5.23 TUSTIN - OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
61sk msessprept
The City of Tustin ('Tustin) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical
facility information and localized potential hazard exposurelloss estimates to help identify the top hazards
threatening them jurisdiction. See Section 4.0 for additional details.
Tustin Lass Assessment Table is located at the end of this section As a note, the City of Tustin takes
exception to the Loss Estimates identified by the Hazus program for fire threat to the City. Utilizing
Hazus, current jurisdiction infrastructure maps, and fire hazard maps the Loss Estimate shows Tustin has
having no fire threat identified. In consideration of recent fire activity Tustin feels it important to note its
concern for protection of its infrastructure from fire.
Tustin water service facilities have been geographically very close to three major fires in recent years:
Baker Canyon Fire in October 1997, Holy Jim / Santiago Canyon Fire in September 1998, and the Sierra
Fire in February 2006. In each incident Tustin activated its emergency operations center in preparation
for potential evacuations, and impact to services. During the Sierra Fire OCFA requested the Tustin
Police Department to be present at the Incident Command Post to assist in the Planning Section Incident
Action Planning process. In.addition while at the Incident Command Post the OCFA notified Tustin of its
vulnerability to urban wildland fires, especially in the northeast portion of the City and the north/central
unincorporated water service area.
5.232 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation. activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This yicludes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances,, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Tustin's fiscal
capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation
action items.
D.. + aoaaeunc5 -162
11
F- IL
•
U
•
SECTIONFM TUSTIN Risk Assessment
5.23.3 Existing instdutions,_Plansi Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of:Tustin are shown in Table 5.23.3 -1, which presents the existing
ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Tustin. Examples of legal and/or
regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances,
special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital
improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure
plans.
Table 5.23.3 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
0�® 1160d4s'5035463
Local.
state
Other Level
Jurisdiction
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, Plans)
Authority
Authority
Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(YesINO)
(Yes /No)
Local
OCFA
A. Building code
Yes
No
Yes
AOMD
UBC
B. Zoning otd'mance
Yes
No
No
Lood
C. Subdivision ordinance of regulations
Yes
No
Yes
County of Orange
County of Orange. -RDMD
Army Corps of Engineers
D. Special
pe purpose ordinances (loodplain
USFWSICDFG
management, stomr water management,
hillside or steep slope oniinancm vnldlre
Yes .
No
Yes
Regional Water Quality Control
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
Board (RWQCB) ..,
OCFA
Resource Agencies
Local
E. Growth management ordinances (also called
Yes
No
Yes
LAFCO
'smart growth' or antinspraW programs)
County of Orange
OCFA
Local
F. Site plan review requinanents
Yes
No
Yes
County of 0range
OCFA
G. General or=nprehenskve plan
Yes
No
No
H.. A capital impiouements plan
Yes
No
No
1. An economic development plan
No -
No
No
0�® 1160d4s'5035463
SEMONFIVE
TUSTIN
Risk Assestment
5.23A Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments hi Tustin and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the. community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Tustin, as
shown in Table 5.23.41, provides an identification of the stall, personnel, and department resources
Available to implement the.actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and Mmshvcture, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
tloodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS'skills and scientists familiar with hazards in .the
community.
o�dn,�s.oausiuc5•l,t4
•
u
•
Local
State
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances. , codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Comments
(YesMo)
(YesMo)
(YeslNo)
Loral
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
No
Yes
State
FEMA
K. A post - disaster recovery plan
Yes
No
No
NIMS
Local
County of Orange
State of Callomia
L Apost- disasterrecoveryieguladon
Yes -
Yes
Yes
AQMD
EPA
FEMA
Dept. of Health Services
Local
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
Yes
No
Yes
Tax Assessor
State Real Estate Board
N. Ca -DHS.
Yes
No
Yes
0. Title M & 22 (potatie) 11SEPA
Yes
No
Yes
P. AlrQuagty =AOMD
Yes
No
Yes
Q. OSHA
Yes
No
Yes
R State Water Code
Yes
No
Yes .
5.23A Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments hi Tustin and their responsibilities related to hazard
mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related
to mitigation efforts within the. community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Tustin, as
shown in Table 5.23.41, provides an identification of the stall, personnel, and department resources
Available to implement the.actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan Specific resources
reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to
building and Mmshvcture, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards,
tloodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS'skills and scientists familiar with hazards in .the
community.
o�dn,�s.oausiuc5•l,t4
•
u
•
• SECTIONFIVE TUSTIN. Risk Assessment
u
0
Table 5.23.41
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes/No
DeparnnentlAgency and Position
A. Plarmer(s) or engheer(s) with knowledge
of land development and land
No
Community Development, Contract Services
management practices
B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained In
Inspectors, Public Works, Building
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
and/or Imastructure
In-house and Outside Consultants
C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an
WEROC
understanding of natural and%or human-
Yes
Contract Services
caused hazards
Wad Services
D. FloWplain manager
Yes
County ofOrange —RDMD
I- Surveyors
No
Outside
F. Staff with education or opertise to assess
No .
Contract Services
the conrrumitys vuhnerabMty, to hazards
G. Personnel Mad in GIS and%or HAMS
No
Contract Services
H. Scientists fam 'Sar with the hazards of the
No
CouMy,USGS
0Arrimundy
I: Emergency manager
Yes
Public Works, Operational Area, WEROC
J. Grant writers
Yes
Planning Dept, Engineering Dep.
M
co.. +i .oa.aasnc5465
SECTIONFIVE
5.23.5 Fiscal Capability
TUSTIN
Risk Assessment
Table 5.23.5 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Tustin such .as community.
development block. grams; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas,-or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
Table 5.23.5 -1
Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/No/Don't Know)
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Don't Know
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or elechic service
Yes
Impact fees for homebuyer sor developers for new d evebpmentsAxrmes
Yes
Incur debt through general obigagon bonds
No
Incur debt through spedal tax and revenue bonds
Yes
Incur debt through private acd* bonds
Don't Know
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
Don't Know
5.23.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Tustin will identify their Summary Local Mitigation Capabilities. Assessment and contacts for their
jurisdiction's yearly update,.to be incorporated in the five year update of the Plan. .
Listed below are Tustin's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For
each goal, one or more objectives 6ave.been identified that provide strategies to attain. the goal. Where
appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losslexposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or
o,n.,,�n„�e.oaossys5-166
n
f�J
•
•
• SECTIONFIVE TUSTIN Bisk Assessment
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan The LPG members were Kathy Ban• and Joe Meyers. Once developed, City staff presented
them to the Tustin City Council for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Tustin's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard
Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
5.23.7 City of Tustin Goals
Goal 1: Reduce Agency's Vulnerability to Disruption
Objecttve 1: . Improve site security
Action 1: Implement Vulnerability Risk Assessment recommendations
Action 2: Survey and improve site fencing
Objective 2': Improve response time
Action 2: Keep Emergency Operations Plan up-to-date
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Agency constructs site improvements as respective facilities are scheduled for replacement or
refurbishment. Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of amoral budget process or
available through financial assistance programs.
Goal G2: Minimize Water'Loss'(Ensure Reliable Supply) During Disaster Events
Objective 1: Reduce reservoir water losses
Action 1: Improve reservoir structures for seismic activity
Action 2: Install seismic valves at critical reservoir sites
Action 3: Install flexible coupling at reservoir sites
Objective 2: Increase available water supplies
Action 1: Loop water sources where possible
Action 1: Maintain supply sources
Objective 3: Protect eristing assets with the highest vulnerability to the effects of
natural disasters
• Action 1: Conduct inspections to ensure seismic retrofitting is in place
oaa�,�.o�socis-167.
SECTIONFIVE TUSTIw 6iskAssessment •
Action 2: Secure above ground assets in all buildings and at well sites
Objective 4: Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards
Action 1: Continue to use current building and infrastructure codes, standards and
guidelines .
Action 2: Continue to follow current plans and guidelines
IMPLEMENTATION STMTEGY.
Contract for engineering studies of site - specific recommendations for structural stiffening and flexible
coupling installation Acquire funding to install seismic valves. Continue to coordinate with neighboring
districts for mterties.
Goal G3: Protect Water Pumping and Water Production System Reliability
Objective 1: Improve local production capacity
Action l: Construct Pasadena Avenue Well
Action 2: Construct Tustin Avenue Well
Objective 2: Increase Potable Water Storage •
Action 1: Reconstruct Rawlings Reservoir
Action 2: Reconstruct Simon Ranch Reservoir
IMPLEMENTA17ON STMTEGY:
Staff will coordinate with neighboring water districts, Past Orange County Water District, Municipal
Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MET') to prioritize and implement projects on a regional basis..
Goal G4: Protect the Public Water Supply from Contamination Caused by Backllow or Back
siphonage in the Event of an Earthquake
Objective 1. Upgrade all potential hazardous potable water services with the required
backflow prevention device as needed to prevent backpresssure or back -
siphonage that could contaminate the public water supply
Action 1: The City is continually monitoring the public water supply and requiring .
the installation of backflow prevention devices on all hazardous potable
services
11
Doo��oc5 -168
• SECTIONME TUSTIN 6iskAssessnleut.
Action 2: Require all single -check fire systems in the Agency to be upgraded to a
Double -Check Detector Assembly
Goal G5: Protect the public water supply from contamination or service interruption in the
event of a fire.
Objective 1: Adopt policy for design of non - combustibles facilities to reduce the threat and
impact of arbantwildfires on structures.
Action l: Establish design standards requiring all facilities to be designed with
noncombustible materials
Objective 2: Provide routine maintenance around the facilities and reduce fuel sources to
avoid the chance of fire threat
Action 2: Establish routine and regular maintenance schedules for all facilities to
ensure that fuel sources have been removed..
Objective 3: Adopt policy to. upgrade existing facilities or install at new facilities fire
detection systems that are most effective.
Action 3: In coordination with City of Tustin building codes and Orange County
• Fire Authority guidelines upgrade existing or install new fire detection
systems that meet current fire detection standards.
•
oxv iw6iw�c5 -169
SE01ONFIVE TUSTIN
Table 9.13 -I Tustin Loss Estimation Table
RiskAssessmelli
Xesud a
ftmn
WST
RES
WTP PS PRE I
EIT I
SC
ADM
L8
WW'tP
WELL
Kim
OWS PS. PR8•MET PP
NRlIP•
EOCWA
INNRP.
OC&O
I.S-0CSD
Pfll
- WWL
Teal loss
VaG1111511
meet
Eerdpuake,
Made
N-0
Number
i3A
6
30.0
0
10.0 2A 02
2 4
02
5
DA
7
34
2
DA
0
Lo
C:
3.5'.
250.0
- 0
$54 12A . 12A
0 C 0
30,0
0
r 250.0 104
0
1A
183.
D!
- 0,0
Exposes ISM)
f. 76A
f •
f20A
f 8.0
f --
f t.0
f 4.2
f 6.0
3' -
f .
f. S
-
f.- -
f -
f -
f -
.
f ..$
-
f -
d 183.7
f - -
S 348.8
N'
Number
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
-' 0
0
C
-
0
0
1.8
0.0
Exlxnum(SM)
8 -is
-is
-
f -
f -.
f -
f -
f- -
f.. -
S� . -
f � -
6 ' � -
f -
E � •�
E -
S -
5 -
Is -
S 11.811;
-Is
itA
Extreme
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
C
0
- 0
'0
0
0
C
D
0,0
bposure ( M)
S -
f -E
-
f -IS
'-
f
-
f -
f -
S -
f -
f - -
f
$ -
S' .1$
-
f -
b -
f -
3 -
S
too
000
Number
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
1,3
0,
Fxpmum Wel)
'f -
f -
f -
f -
f -'
f -
f -
f JS
-
f -
E. -
f -
f -
f -
3 -
S -
f -
E -
E 1,3
5 -
f 1.3
Num r
. 0
1
0
0
2
0
0
C
0
C'
- 0
0
0,0
powm(SAV
S 13.0
f
10.0
f 2.0
f
E 12
f.
-
�
.264
+
f -
S -
83A
-
d 113.3
Lendelds
Num !
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
gown (Sin)
S -
f -
f. -
Is -
f -
f -
f. -,
f
f -
f -
8 -.
f-
f
$ -
3 --
6 -
$ -
f�
f D.3
$ -
S D.3
Maedos
Mod
Njlb
ether
0
1
1.
0
1
0
0
C.
8
C
C
0
. 0
0
0
76.51
' 010
powm(SMI
3 13.0
f -
$10.0
f 2A
f -
f Q3
1.2
S -
f
-
f 8.0
f
f -
f .-
It -
$ -
S
76.5
f
131.0
Number
0
0
0
0
..2
0
b.
0
0
0
C
0
0
61.2
FxpawmlSMl
S -
f -
f -
E '-
$ -
f 0.3
S 12
d 0.0
f -
5
3,51
f -.
-
f -
f -
$ . -
f -
$ -
f -
$ 612
S -
$ 72.2
Very Frig
her
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
07
DA
pawn (I Ml
WIWIhfBbuclure Fke
His
Eeas
bhr
0
0
0
' 0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
1.e
DA
(3M)
f'- -
3 -
f -
f
8 -
3 -
E •
f -
3 r
S -
f -
f -
f -
3 -
f -
f -
3 -
$ 1.e
f -
S 1.6
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
C
:. 0
C
0
C
0
0
Ns-
0.
Fxpseme(Sil)
f -
f
f -
E r
$
f -
f . -
f -
f -
f . -
f -
f -
f - -•
f
S. -
f -
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
C
0
0
0
0
0
DA
posum(5M)
f-
f.-
f-
s-
s-
f.-
E-
S -t.
-f
-s.
-s.
s
s
s -s
s
s -3
s
Ell Loss value Is asset replacement votes In 2006 dollare. Value shown Is found as count o/ maea U rlak from the parttcular hazard _times htnh-end unit meat value.
l21 Oran Total Loss value shorn may Include the same assets counted multiple times for difteront MmMS.
.131.`Tustin dlasgrem with Me haws methodology assemmenlos Wildfire d building Ore throats within the City of Tustin and surrounding unincorporated water service areas ".
IMS
�5 -170
urmuc Tot3 E 575.31
• SECTIONFIVE wESTMINSTER HIMASSessment
5.24 WESTMINSTER - OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
The City of Westminster (Westminster) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including
detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify
the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4.0 for additional details.
Westminster Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section.
5.24.2 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to hazard mitigation planning.. The second part of the Assessment provides Westminster's
fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified
mitigation action items.
5.24.3 Existing institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabilities of Westminster ate shown in Table 5.24.3 -I, which presents the
• existing ordinances.and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Westminster. Examples of
legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review,, general plans,
capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate
disclosure plans.
Table 5,74.3 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capabiliy
•
� 000.�mn�soaontivoo� -171
Local
state.
Other Level
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
,
Authority
Authority
Jurisdiction
Authority
Comments
(YosiNO)
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
A. Bunting code
Yes
No
No
Planning, Code Enforcement
B. Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
No
Planning
C. Subdivision ordinance or reguMons
Yes
No
No
Planning
D. Special purpose ordinances (1loodplain
County of Orange
management, stormwater fit,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Army Corps of Engineers
hillside or steep dope ordinances, Qdffre
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
RWQCB,USFWSICDRG
E. Growth management ordinances (also rAfec
'smart
Yes
No
No
Planning
growth'crar sprewlprograms)
� 000.�mn�soaontivoo� -171
SECTINIFIVE WESTMIINSTER RISkA$363SM'601 •
Table 5.24.3- 1(continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability.
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Local
Authority
(Yes/No)
State
Authority
(Yes/No)
Other Level
Jurisdiction
Authority
(YeslNo)
comments
F. Site plan Wow requirements
Yes
No
No
Planning
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
No
No
CityGeneral Plan
H. A cepdti improvements plan
Yes
No
No
Water Master Plan
I. An economic development plan
Yes
No
No
Community:Development
I An emergency response plan
Yes
No
No
SEMS, WEROC,NIMS, WARN
K Apod- disaster recovery plan
Yes
No
No
NIMS
L. A post-disaster recovery c dtnance
Yes
No
No
M. Real estate disclosure requrements
Yes
No
No
State Board of Realtors -
N. Caltrans
No
Yes
No
0. CA DHS (Ser d)f Issues)
Yes
No
No
Vulnerabifdy Assessment
P. Title M & 22 (potable)
Yes
Yes
Yes
USEPA -
5.24A Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of existing departments in Westminster and'their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of
Westminster, as shown -in Table 5.24.4 -1, provides an identification of the staff personnel, and
department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan.
Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as plannerstengineers with
Imowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices related to building and inirastr ucpue, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade hazards,'floodplain managers, surveyors_, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with
hazards in the - community.
000.d�nvomoa�sos5 -172
•
•
• SECTIONFIVE WESTMINSTER I eiSkASSessment
L
Table 5.24.3 -1 (continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Local
Authority
(Ye s/No)
State
Authority
(Yes/No)
Other Level
Jurisdiction
Authority
(Yes/NO)
Comments
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
No
planning
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
No
No
City General Plan
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No
No
Water Master Plan
I. An economic development plan
Yes
No
No
CommurityDevelopmerd
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
No
No
SEMS, WEROC,NIMS, WARN
K A post - disaster recovery plan
Yes
No
No
NIMS
L A post-disaster recovery ordinance
Yes
No
No
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
Yes
No
No
State Board of Realtors
N. Caltrans
No I
Yes
No
0. CA DHS (Secudty Issues)
Yes I
No
No
VulnerabinyAssessment
P. Tioe M & 22 (potable)
Yes I
Yes
Yes .
USEPA
5.24.4 Administrative and Technical Capacity
The following is a summary of adsting departments in Westminster and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as exdsting planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of
Westminster, as shown in Table 5.24.4 -1, provides an identification of the staff; personnel, and
department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section. of the Plan.
Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as plannerstengineers with
knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices related to building and innfiastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with
hazards in the community.
.Do WnwodoMcwm5 -172.
SECTINFIVE WESTMINSTER HISkAsSeSS'lllent •
Table 5.24.4 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes/No
DepartmentiAgency and Position
A. Planner(s) orengineer(s) with knowledge
PuigcWoTkS (Engkiem)
of land devekipment and land
Yes
management practices
Planning (Planners)
B. Engineer(s) or professionals) trained In
construction practices related to buildings
Yes
Public Works (E glineers)& Contractors
and/or infrstructure
C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an
Public Works (Engineers)
understanding of natural and/or human-
Yes
caused hazards
Planning (Planners)
D. Fkodplain manager
No
County of Orange
E. Surveyors
Yes
Public Works Traffic Engineers (Tect"clahs) .
F. Staff with education or expertise to assess
No
WEROC ! County of Orange
the c ommunity's vulnerability to hazards
G. Persainelsitledi nGlS and/or HAZUS
Yes
PublicW o��o�fCenterforDemographic
Research,CSUF
H. Sdengsts farti6an wth the hazards of the
No
County of Orange,.Cui Tech, local Universities
community
I. Emergency. manager
Yes
Public Works / Water Supervisor, Cross Connection
J. Grant writers
Yes
Public Works / Administrative Analyst
K Lab Specialist
No
Truesdell labs
5.24.5 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.24.5 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Westminster such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific .
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
hazard -prone areas.
oa,.amu,w.bwas,soc3 -173 -
C,
J
•
• SECTIONFIVE WESTMINSTER WiskAssetsin nt
l •
Table 5.24.5-1
Fiscal Capability
5.24.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Westminster's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions.
For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal.
Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed :by considering the risk assessment 'findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan The LPG members were Vivian Filt'ppelli, Todd Miller and Jerry Vilander. Once developed,
City staff presented them to the Westminster City Council for their approval
�� oon.�«m�aa�soc5 -174
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes/No/Don't Know)
A.
Consnunity Development Block Groats (CDBG)
No
B.
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
C.
Aufiro *tolevytwm for specific purposes
No
D.
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
E
Impact fees for homebuyetsor developers for new
developmentsthomes
Yes
F.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes
G.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds:,
Yes
H.
Incur debt through pdv ate activity bonds
Yes
I.
Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas
Yes
J.
Grants
Yes
5.24.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals
Listed below are Westminster's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions.
For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal.
Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
The goals and objectives were developed :by considering the risk assessment 'findings, localized hazard
identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning
documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or
MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the
overall Plan The LPG members were Vivian Filt'ppelli, Todd Miller and Jerry Vilander. Once developed,
City staff presented them to the Westminster City Council for their approval
�� oon.�«m�aa�soc5 -174
SECTIONFIVE WESTMINSTER RiskASSeSSnICnt •
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and.
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard- related goals,. objectives and actions as prepared by Westminster's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizeru.
Table 5.24.6 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
ooa.naarre.oa- aauoc5 -175
r1
u
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction`
Agency Name
Policies, .
Tie
(Mission/Function)
Regulations,
Address
Comments
. Funding, or
Phone Contact
Support.
Facilitate
Niger
Practices
City of Westminster
Water Supedniendent
Water Division
1. Water VNiision
143810Gve Street
Best Management
X
x
Practices
Westrrars[er, CA 92683
7114895-2876, ext 6285
WaterSuperintandent
14381 Orm Street
2 Vulneratililyr
Westrai ster. CA 92663
x
x
Assessment
714 895.2876, ed 6265
Water Production Supervisor
3.Water Emagancy
1438i OWe Street
Response Plan /WEROC
x
x
$EMS, NIMS, WARN
Westminstar, CA 92683
714 895.2876,ex16206
Water Supemderdent
4.Urban Water
1438109ve Street
..
Management Plan
WeshNrunx, CA 92663
X
X
7114895-287k ext 6205
Water ProdudionSupervisor
.
14381 O9ve Street
5.W6lerMasterPlan
x
x
Westminster, CA 92683
714 895- 287%ext 6206
ooa.naarre.oa- aauoc5 -175
r1
u
• SECTIONFIVE WESTNMNSTER Risk Assessment
u
Table 5.24.6- 1(continued)
Local Ktigation Capability Assessment
w ., mwou-onsoo5 -M
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction`
Agency Name
Policies,
Title
(Mission/Function)
Regulations,
Address
Comments
Funding, or
Phone Contact
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
City of Westminster
Plaming Manager
8200 Westminster Blvd.
1. Ciy General Plan
x
x
Westminster, CA 92683
714 898.3311, eA 255
Assistant City Mang
2. City. Fmergency
8290 Westminster Blvd.
x
x
Management Plan
westrrnrster, CA 92663
714 8983311, ext 555
The rnission of the City of WestininsterWater Division is; to provide safe, High quality ddnldng water and also to ensure tOD percent
fire protection and adequate water pressure to the residents of Westminster, to provide these water delvery services at the lowest
possible cost in a safe xorldrig'ernlronrnent for afiCity Wier Division employees.
Orange County Fire
Assistant C Nef
Authority
1. Inventory Progam of
1 Fire Audrorby Rd
x
x
Hazardous waste
Irvine, CA 92602
(714)573- MOO'
Assistimt Cidef
1 Fire Aidhatty Rd .
2 Fire Code inspections
x
x
Irvine, CA 92602
(714)573.6100
US Amry Corys of
Director
Engineers
Los Angeles DIsMa
1. Reservoir Regulation.
915 Wishim Blvd, Ste 980
x
x
Prato Dam
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213)452x908
US Fish & Wildlife
1 Er&m legitimate use
370 Amapoia Ave. Ste 114
Service
& enOyment of migratory
Torrance, CA 90501
x
x
birds & odw vA*We
(310)3281516
w ., mwou-onsoo5 -M
SEC110UNTE WESTMINSTER RisllAsseSSlllCfli •
Table 5.24.6- 1(continued)
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Agency Name
(Mission/Function)
Programs, Plans,
Pollcles,
Regulations,
Title
Address
Effect on Loss Reduction'
Comments
Funding, or
Phone Contact
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
Division d Ddnking Water &
U.S.Environmental
EnvkonmentalManagemerd
Agency"
iDnnki� /
t Water Quality; regulate
Offitice d
and update ddnidng water
�ddY standards.
P.O. Box 2a11S216
X
X
Water
Sacramento, CA g423"M
MQ 3236111
5.24.7 City of Wesminster Goals
The City of Westminster has developed two goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan
Goal 1. Minimize damages to facilities / infr 1ructuue due to natural disasters
Goal 2. Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards
5.24.8 Objectives and Actions :
Goal. M(nimize damages.to facilities / infrastructure due to natural disasters
Objective: Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability to the effects of natural disasters.
• (Action) Continue inspections to ensure retrofitting is in place.
• (Action) Secure above ground assets in all buildings and at well sites
Objective: Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards
• (Action) Continue to use current building and infrastructure codes, standards and
guidelines '
• (Action) Continue to follow current plans and guidelines
Goah Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards
Objective: Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused
hazards
Um Do enda•owee wS -177
•
•
SECTIONFIVE WESTMINSTER BtskAssessment
• (Action) Develop and expand cooperation with all outside agencies regarding
human caused hazards.
• (Action) Continue and expand education for administrative personnel on possible
human caused hazards.
Objective: Increase the knowledge of government employees and the public of extremely hazardous
substance handling procedures and terrorism aware:
• (Action) Continue and expand OSHA training for all employees who may come
in contact with said materials
• (Action) .Conduct public workshops for awareness of hazardous materials
incidents for government employees
i
i
omm•.;rem.oeisoc5 -l78
SOTIONFIVE WESTMINSTER RhkAssessment
Table 24.1 Weshniniter Loss Estimation Table
Hsnrd
sanxnt o1
Nem+a
N>
W8T
77.0
RE6
30A
Will,
10.0
P8 PRS
?d 03
91'
0A
SC
1 OA .
ADN
3A
L8
OA
1VT/TP
SA
WELL
IS
DIEHER
250.0
OCdOPB
35A
PRS•NET
tt0
-PP
110
WWm•
SOCWA
104
WWTP•
OCSD
1
L8.00eD
l0A
Rri WNL
IS as
Total Lots
Vdue lt)fM
SM
Moderate
umbel
Exposure ISM)
0
0
0
0 1
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
452
0.0
Hit
tuber
porous (SK
S -
2
S -
S -
0
S • S 0.2
1 0
S 0.3
2
S 0.6
2
S. -
1
S .
0
S . -
0
$14.0
1
S -
- 0-
S -
0
S -
0
S
0
-
0
S -
0
S. -
0
S 45.2
0.6
It - -
0.0
S 60.3
Fxke
Number
Exppswe (SM)
S 26A
0
-
0
S -
0
S 2A S -
0 0
S OA
0
S 13
0
S 3.0
0
S . -
S -
0
E35A
.S •
0
.
'S -
If .. -
0
3. -
0
S
0
S -
S •
0
S 210.6
- D.0
S
0.0
S 278.4
Fked --
_ 100
Number
S -
0
S -
0
S -
S - S •
0
S -
0
S -
0
S -
0
S
-
0
S -.
3
S.
0.
-
0
.S
S -
0
S -
0
S -
0
$ -
S -
72.7
S - -
0.0
S
Expa ee ism)
_
500
S -
S- -
S -
S
; -
S -
3 -
S •
S . -
S -
510.5
6 -
S
S -
S -15
-
S -
S -
S 72.7
5 -
S 83.2
Number
2
0
7
1
3
37
0
Ill.
0
0
0
0
0
702.7
0.0
Eiposurs(SM)
S BA
-.
S -
S 2.01S
S.OA
S. IS
S. 3A
; -
$38.813
S
S .1$
S
S
S. -
S tB2A
S
S 25SJ
Lame
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
0 .
.
9ryown M)
S
S -
S -
S OJ
S •
S- 0.7
aNsNon
Mode
r
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
3
0
0
D
0
0
0
48.3
0.0
Expoaun nM)
H
S -
S -
S -
S '•
$ . •
S 0.3
S •
S -
S . -
S -
570,6
S -
-
S -
S -
If
S -
S -
S 483
$
59.1
Number
2
7.
7
3
7
D
1
0
0
0
0
--2-073
Expoume(SM)
S 26
S -
S 2A
S 0.2
S 0.6
S 13'
S 3A
S - -
$, -
$36.5
S. r
S
S
-
S -
S -
S
S 207.0
S -
S 279.6
VaryH
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
Exposure (Sts)
-
'S
S -
S
S
S -
; -
S
S -
S'
S"
-
S
S -
S -
S -
It -
S -
S -
$ -
S
WOtilf4MWdun Fire
too
Number
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.7
0.0
E%posare(sM)
Hg
S 26.0
S -
.S -
S 2A
S -
S -
S •
S •
S -
S. -
S S•5
S -
S -
S -
S. .- •
S -
:S -
S -
S 6.7
S -
It 37.2
Number
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
OA
0.
ExpwUm(SM)
$ - 1
S -
S -
S
S -
S_ .-$
•.
S -
S r
S
S -
S -
S -
S -,
S -
S. r
S
S' -
S
$ -
S
Number
0
0
0
a
D.
0
D
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
a.D
.
Expwure (SM)
Exibrome
-
S -
S -
S
s -
S -
.s-
-
S
S
S -
$ -is
-
S
-
S -
S
Grand Total s] 1,053.11
[1] Loss value Is asset replacement value In 2008 dollars. Value shaven Is found is count of assets at risk from the particular hsssrd tines Hai unit asset value.
l21 Grand Total Lose value shown may Include the same assets counted multiple times for different hazards. -
i �wae wS -179
• SECTIONME YORBA LINDA WD RlskAssessmeet
5.25 YORBA LINDA— OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS
The Yorba Linda Water District (Yuba Linda) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps
including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposurelloss estimates to
help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction See Section 4.0 for additional details.
Yorba Linda Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section
5.25.2 Capability Assessment
The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative,
technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This Includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities
associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place
associated to,.hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Yorba Linda's
fiscal. capabilities .that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified
mitigation action items.
5.25.3 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances
The legal and regulatory capabi sties' of'Yorba Linda are shown in Table 5:25.4 -1, which presents the
• existing ordinances and codes that: affect the physical or built enviromnent of Yorba Linda: Examples of
legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances,
subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review,:
general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and
real estate disclosure plans.
•
5.25A Legal and Regulatory Capability
Table 5.25.4 -1
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Ms Doi .U%- a DG5 -180
Local
State
Coui4ffled
Regulatory Tools tNluances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(Yes/No)
. (Yes/No)
Local Cities
A Buldhig code
Yes
Yes
No
OCFA
B. Zoning ordinance
Yes
No
No
C. Subd Wsionotd'nance or regtilagats
No
No
No
Ms Doi .U%- a DG5 -180
SECTIONFNE YORBA LINDA WD 6iskAssessment •
Table 5.25.4- 1(continued)
Legal and Regulatory Capability
un, wa.,earvroaaetsDa5 -181
•
•
Local
State
County /Fed
Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans)
Authority
Authority
Authority
Comments
(Yes/No)
(YesMo)
(Yes/No)
D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain
SAWPA
management, storm water management,
No
No
No
CD Forestry
hillside or steep slope ordinances, vAdf e
ordinances, hazard setback requirements)
State Parks
E. Growth management ordinances (also caller
Yes
No
No
LAFCO
'smart growth' or ark- sprawl programs)
F. Site plan review requirements
Yes
No
Yes
orange County Fire, Authority
Negative Dedarali n
G. General or comprehensive plan
Yes
Yes
No
1
YLWD water master plan
H. A capital improvements plan
Yes
No.
No
YLWD Board of Directors
1. An ecenomic development plan
Nb
No
No
Water;D strict Is an
•
independentagency
J. An emergency response plan
Yes
No
No
SEMS,NIMS,WERM
K A post - disaster recovery plan
Yes
No
No
NIMS
L A post-disaster recovery regulation
Yes
Yes
No
� 'State, Dept cif
Health Services
Board of Realtors
M. Real estate disclosure requirements
No
Yes
No
Placentia Yorba School Dist
N. AirQuolityErnissions -.
Yes
Yes
No
SCAQMD`
0. ConsWt#on Safety Practices
Yes
Yes
No
Cal OSHA
P. Pressure Vessel
Yes
Yes
No
State.Dept of Ind. Safety
Wildlife Corridor Conserv.
Q. Wildlife
Yes
Yes
Yes
Authodty(WCCA)
USFWS
R Seismicity / Geology
Yes
Yes
No
Calif. Div of Mines and
Geology
S. AicheologicaMaleontology
No
Yes
No
Local University and
Associations .
T. Water Discharge Requirements
No
Yes
No
State Water Resources Control
Board
un, wa.,earvroaaetsDa5 -181
•
•
• SECTIONFIVE YORBA LINDA tnro RIMAssessment
I[]
•
5.25.5 Administrative and Technical Capacity.
The following is a summary of existing departments in Yorba Linda and their responsibilities related to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations
related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Yorba
Linda, as shown in Table 5.25.5 -1, provides an identification of the staid; personnel, and department
resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific
resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with
knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction
practices related to building and infiastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or
manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with
hazards in the community.
Table 5.25.5 -1
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Staff /Personnei Resources
YeslNo
DepartmentlAgency and Position
A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge
of land .devebpmen(and land management.
Yes
Hunsaker g Associates, Doug Snyder, PE
practices
principal of Planning, Engineering, Surveying
B. Engineer(s)'orprotessionat(s) trained in
Parsons Inc., idchard Bentwbod, PE
construction pradoes related to buildings
Yes
Program Manager of Water and Infrastructure
and/or infrastructure
Division
C. Planners or Fnginee*) with an
undershrWing.of natural andbor human-
Yes
Carolb Engineers, Brian Powell; PE
caused hazards
Program Manager, Seamly Vulnerability
D. Fbodplah manager
No
County of Orange, Sl omr Water Department, RDMD
E Surveyors
Yes
Leighbin Consulting, Inc., Tom Benson Jr. PE, GE
President of Geotech, Fnviron, Inspection Engr.
City of Yorba Engineering Staff, Mark Stowel,
F. Staff with educalloo or expertise to assess
Yes
Director of Pudic Works
the cormrurgl�s vulnerability to hazards
Yorba Linda Water District Engineering Stag
Ken Vecddardl, Engineering Manager
G. Personnel shed in GIS andfor HAZUS
No
DCSE Consuing, Yaz Emrani, President
H. Scientists hinder viith the hazards of the
NO
Cal Tech Seisrnoiogy Deparfinerd, Dr. Kate Hutton,
community
PHD.
County of Orange Fire Authority
I. Emergency manager
No
Kelly Hubbard, WEROC coordinator, Midrael A.
Payne, GM Yaba Linda Water District
aid
SECT10NFWE YORBA LINDA WD
Table 5.25.5 -1 (continued)
Administrative and Technical Capacity
Risk ftsessmellt •
StafflPomannel Resources
Yes/No
DeparbnerWAgency and Position '
J. Grant writers
Yes
Townsend Public Affairs, Sean Fitzgerald, Consultant,
writer.
K Public Information
Yes
Mike Robinson, PID
5:25.6 Fiscal Capability
Table 5.25.6 -1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Yorba Linda such as community
development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes .for specific
purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in
haiard -prone areas.
Table 5.25:6 -1
Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to Use
(Yes1No(Don't Know)
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
No
Capital improvements project furaiing.
Yes, YLWD Capital Budget 5 yr.
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Yes, Special Assessment Ares
Fees forwater, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes, for reimbursement of Water
Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new devebpnentsRames
Yes, Water Development fees
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes, for Capital Projects
Incur debt, through special tax and revenue bond
Yes
Incur debt through private akllivity bonds
No
Vdhhold spending in hazer imme area
DonT Know
MS
ooa.��mrwosce�oo$ -183
•
•
• SE(:nQNFIVE YOREA LINDA WO alskAssessment
•
5.25.7 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Listed below are Yorba Linda's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions.
For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal.
Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and-goal.
The goals and.objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard
identification and losstwgxisure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities
assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-
term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these.goals and
objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's
planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition; District representatives met with consultant staff.
.and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard- related goals, objectives and actions as they related
to the overall Plan. Once developed, District staff presented them to the Yorba Linda Board of Directors
for their approval.
Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and
actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to
hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the
hazard - related goal objectives and actions as prepared by Yorba Linda's LPG in conjunction with the
Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens.
Table 5.25.7 -1
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
=7 7
o..wmw-o�5 -184
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction"
Agency Name
Policies.
Point of Contact
(Mission/Function)
Regulations,
Name, Address,
Comments
Funding, or
Phone, Email
Support
Facilitate
Hinder
Practices
City of Yorba Linda
1. Old Town
Planrdng Dept
X
X
Water M*.
Plans Included
Redevelopment
City of YL
Ohl Town
Provide
Metropolitan Water.
1. Cmss Feeder -
MEr'Engineedng
X
X
additional off-
District of So Cal
Cityof Placentia
site tinter
supply
OOsrange County Water
1. Ground Water
der'
Provide
Replenishment
O�
X
X
added water
Program
to local aquUer
=7 7
o..wmw-o�5 -184
SECTIONME YORBA LINDA VVD
Table 5.25.7- 1(continued)
Local Mitigation Capability Assessment
Risk Assessment
5.25.8 Yorba Linda WD Goals
Yoiba Linda Water District is a member of the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange
County (WEROC) and is actively participating in preparing a Hazard Mitigation Plan for. natural and
human- caused hazards'within the District service area.
Goal Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, critical facilities and
buildings due to Earthquakes.
0
•
C�
Programs, Plans,
Effect on Loss Reduction'
Agency Name
Policies,
Point of Contact
(MissioniFunedon)
Regulations,
Name, Address,
Comments
Funding, or
Phone, Email
Support
Facilitate
. Hinder
Practices
Reviews all
County
1. General Fir@ Plan
Fire Marshall of
X
plans for
Fire Aulhorky
of Orange County
OCFA
X
major
developml
Homeland Security,
1. Security
USEPA Haz
Completed
Federal Govetm't
VdinerabiGty Plan
Mitigation Director
X
X
and working
document
1. Capita
Ken Vecchiarolti,
Approved by
Improvement
A�yi Gen. Manager
' . X
X
the Board of
Program
Directors
2 Annexations
some
X
X
Areas in
Mash Plan
Ywba Unda Water
AwaNng plan
Disidct
3. New Admin Bldg
SRI Moorhead Sr.
X
X
Check
Project Engineer
Approval
4. Zone 3 Pipefine
Scott Moulton, Project
X
X
Ids in
Repkin'f
Replacement
Engineer
program
5.
5.25.8 Yorba Linda WD Goals
Yoiba Linda Water District is a member of the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange
County (WEROC) and is actively participating in preparing a Hazard Mitigation Plan for. natural and
human- caused hazards'within the District service area.
Goal Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, critical facilities and
buildings due to Earthquakes.
0
•
C�
• SECTIONFIVE YORBA LINDA WD BiskAssessmegt
Actions:
Develop comprehensive, approach to. reducing the possibility 'of damage and losses due to
Actions:
1. Provide NIMS and SEMS training for all existing and new employees per EPA guidelines.
2. Conduct semi-annual emergency response training exercises for District staff: the first year with
an outside Emergency Planning consultants, then Self-training the following years.
3. Participate and coordinate with Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County
(WEROC) and other member agencies in hazard preparedness.
4. Insure the District has sufficient' equipment, materials, and communications hardware to respond
and recover from natural hazards.
coa.�enna.oaos�soo5 -I86
earthquake to the Districts critical facilities.
2.
Provide training for in -house staff..for identifying any structural defects of critical facilities
within the came -and moderate earthquake threat zones.
3.
Replace the 1909 Highland Reservoir and design its replacement to latest UBC Seismic Codes.
4.
Identify existing water storage tanks which do not have any seismic monitoring systems and
develop a capital improvement plan to implement.
5.
Develop a. policy and protocol. for evaluating any structural damage of critical structures and
facilities.
6.
Identify all reservoirs, booster stations, building facilities built prior tol972 UBC
7.
Obtain Seismic Codes and design calculations for structural review.
Goal
Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, people, private property, and
critical facilitiesrnfrastructure due 4o floods.
Actions:
i. • 1.
Develop comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to floods.
2.
Identify the threat of flood on District's critical facilities /infrastructure.
3.
Identify District facilities that have limited storm drainage and flood control measures.
4.
Protect existing assets with -the highest relative vulnerability-to the effects of floods within the
100 -year floodplain
5.
Construct a storm drainage system for Richfield's well production site to avoid on -site flooding.
6.
Coordinate efforts with other internal and external agencies to monitor impending storms.
Goal:
.Strengthen the District Emergency Response services to insure preparedness during a
major natural hazard event.
Actions:
1. Provide NIMS and SEMS training for all existing and new employees per EPA guidelines.
2. Conduct semi-annual emergency response training exercises for District staff: the first year with
an outside Emergency Planning consultants, then Self-training the following years.
3. Participate and coordinate with Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County
(WEROC) and other member agencies in hazard preparedness.
4. Insure the District has sufficient' equipment, materials, and communications hardware to respond
and recover from natural hazards.
coa.�enna.oaos�soo5 -I86
SECTIONME YOR13A LINDA WD 6ISRASSCSsment •
5. Develop mutual aid response teams, trairft and exercises for natural hazards with local
member agencies.
6. Prepare an emergency response preparedness brochure for the local community identifying all
types of natural hazards
Goal: Protect Yorba Linda Water District assets from a major Earthquake event.
Actions:
1: Perform a seismic study analysis for all District structures and facilities.
2. Update the District standard specification to comply with latest UBC seismic design codes for
structures and pipelines.
3. Conduct routine site inspections of.District structure and facilities and report any structural
deficiencies.
4. Retain a registered structural engineer to evaluate any reported structural defects, conducting
facilities inspections, and recommend mitigation measures.
5. Adopt Structural Design Criteria which will resist.the most severe earthquake of 8.0.
6.. Build redundancy into the District's water supply source to mitigate major structural defects to
its main trarumission water pipelines. •
Goal: Reduce the High Fire Threat to the District facilities/infrastructure.
Actions:
1. Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to
structural Ere/ wildfire.
2.. Create a Ere management plan outlining various impacted District facilities and vulnerabilities.
3. Share all District in&astructurestbuilding information with local, county, and state Ere agencies.
4. Adopt a District policy for design of non- combustible facilities to reduce the threat and impact of
Wildfire on structures.
5. Provide redundant underground communication systems for critical facilities to insure reliability
of District operating systems.
6. Provide routine maintenance around District facilities to avoid the chance of fire threat and
reducing the fuel source.
oa,.�awoaassoc5 -187
• SECTIONFIVE YORBA LINDA WD HIMAssessmem
Goal: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets and critical facilities and
infrastructure due to risk of landslide or mudslide.
As
0
K _ " I,
1. Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to
landslide or mudslide.
2. Create a landslide management plan outlining various impacted District facilities and
vulnerabilities.
3. Identify all District infrastructures/building currently within the high risk landslide or mudslide
areas.
4. Adopt a District policy for design of facflities to reduce the threat and impact of landslide and or
mudslide on structures.
5. Protect existing assets with a high relative vulnerability to the effect of landslide or mudslide.
6. Provide routine maintenance around District facilities to avoid the chance of landslide or
mudslide by maintaining slopes and plantings within the slide area.
Goal.• Increase the reliability of District power and communication systems due to the risk of high
wind/Santa Ana wind condition.
Actions:, .
1. Survey the District power and communication systems facilities and develop back -up plan for
operating during downed power and telephone lines.
2. Provide back-up mobile utility systems In addition to the regular power and. telephone
infrastructure equipment.
3. Build an underground redundant cable network to avoid loss of communications due to downed
powerttelephone poles.
4. Reinforce current structures to withstand a high Santa Ana wind condition or micro burst of high
wind
5. Establish working relationships with local, county, and state agencies, which include information
sharing and monitoring of impending events.
6. Educate employees of the potential hazards of high winds/Santa Ana condition.
onsomosscc5 -188
SECTIONFNE YOR13A LINDA WD HI- MASSCMON •
Goal: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing District assets and critical facilities
and infrastructure due to liquefaction.
Actions:
1. Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the passibility of damage and losses due to
liquefaction
2. Create a comprehensive risk analysis of liquefaction areas or zones.
3. Survey District facilities to determine if any are in medium to high threat liquefaction zones.
4. Review District standards and specifications and modify, add, change design criteria to reflect
risk of liquefaction including the new.Administration building on the Richfield operations site.
5. Educate District employees of the potential hazards of liquefaction to District assets.
6. Review the local city ordinances regarding building codes and development within Ute
liquefaction zones.
Goal Reduce potential loss and injury to human fife and to .existing assets, facilities, and
infrastructure due to human caused hazards.
Actions:
1. Develop a comprehensive approach -to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to
human - caused hazards.
2. Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of .human- caused
hazards.
3. Provide training for District employees and other personnel for security on danger signs.
4. Submit applications for grant money for security related facilities for the high risk items.
5. Develop full cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused hazards.
6. Conduct education for administrative personnel and other decision makers on the possibility of
human caused hazards.
Goal Promote public-understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation.
Actions:
1. Educate the public awareness of hazards and opportunities for mitigation actions to local
residents and businesses.
2. Hold public meetings prior to this plan, and hold semi - annual meetings addressing mitigation
3. Promote a partnership between the local, county, and state governments to identify, prioritize,
and implement mitigation actions.
4. Promote hazard mitigation in the business community.
A oa,.�mr,�e:oa.m�sao5 -189
•
• SECTIONME YORBA LINDA WD HiskASSeSsment
5. Use the public media to cover mitigation activities.
6. Publish bi- monthly newsletters.for the. public and business. leaders with information regarding
hazardous mitigation of natural and man-made hazards.
i •
0
Goal:. Reduce potential loss and injnry to human life and to existing assets, critical facilities, and
infrastructure due to Dam Failure/Water Tank Failure.
Actions:
1. Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to Dam
and Water. Tank Failure hazards.
2. Protect Casting assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of failure of the Prado
Dam and Bastanchury 2 MG water tank failure.
3. Provide training on security for District employees and other personnel on danger signs in and
around these local facilities.
4. Coordinate with'and support existing efforts to mitigate dam'failtue with, the Army Corp of
Engineers, and Orange Comity Flood Control District
S. Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate Bastanchury Water Tank failure with
City ofYorba Linda and Hover Development.
6. Develop full :cooperation with all outside agencies regarding Prado .Dam failure and/or
Bastanchury Water Tank failure.
Goal: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, critical facilities, and
Infrastructure due to Hazardous Material Release into the groundwater' basin.
Actions:
1. Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and degradation of
water quality due to a hazardous material release to the underground groundwater basin.
2. Protect existing water quality assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of
hazardous material release in the Santa Ana River watershed basin.
3. Provide training on security for District employees and other personnel on danger signs of .a
hazardous material release.
4. Identify all major fuel pipelines; rail transportation corridors, manufacturing facilities, and their
relative vulnerability of any hazardous material releases to the groundwater basin
5. Develop full cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused hazards.
6. Publish bi=monthly newsletters for the public with information regarding hazardous materials
and proper disposal
o.dnnaoaoe OGS -190
SEC IONFNE YOItSA LINDA wD AtskASSessment
Table 25-1 Yorba Linda Ian Salutation Table
Hazard Type
•. Nr
'WST
RES WIP I
PS
PRS
FAT, SC
ADM
L6..
WWIP.,
WELL
DIEMEW
OC43Pa
PRS•MET
PP
WWTP.
SOCWA
WWm
OCSO
LS -0 050
PWL
- WWL
Told Lol,
Valu,lll3M
p soema+t
Earthquake
moderah
a
Number
+3A
0
10.0 Mul
0 0
LA
0
02
0
04 0.6
0 0
7.0
.0
OA
0
La
•:. 0
3A>
0
4n.0 --
0
35.0 +
0 0
- +2A
0
30D
25LO
0
+0.0
'0
WA
OA
0.0
0.0
E,poturo
s
s•
s
s
s
s
i
•
a.
HMO
Number
+
D
a
8
4
+
.+
0
0
6
B
0
0
0
0
. -0
.1
16.1
8.0
.o
ewel5M1
S 13.0
s
-
s. 2.0
3`1.6
s +.2
•
S.3.0
$ 0.4
s •.
628.0
s -.
s -
$.
S -
s
-
3
18.1
S 8.0
3 70.3
r
+2
' 0
. 0
11
29
6
4
..' +
0
- 0
+
0
0.
0
0
0
0
53.7
4.7
$190.0
s •
a •
$22.0
5.8
s +.8'
S 2.4
s- 3.0
s
s -
s .5
3.. -
s
s -
3
-
s.
-
f .53.7
2.4
3 250.6
Food
tea
600 "
r
0
11
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
.3.6
0.8
ISLq
3 •
S
3 -
3
3 OA'
3
-
3
3 -
3 7.0
$
-
3 -
5
-
3 3.5
S 0.4
S IIA
Hum
0
0
0
0
+'
3
+
0.
0
7
0
0
0
-- 0
0
0
0
6.5
.8
E3pnuq CIM)
s .
-
8 -
a
0.2.
s 0.9
s
30
3 -
a
$24.5
s -
.
s
•
s
s
•
s -
f 6.6
$ 0.3
3 35A
tande3ds
Nu r
+0
0
0
6
+0
0
2
'.. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
-0
12.6
0.3
3+30.0
•
S10.0
s 2.0.
s -
s +2
s
s
-
3
-
-6 •
s
-IS
.12.6
0.2
f +69.0
wquWdbn
Lla
wf
Numhr
' 0
0
0
' 0
3
6
-. 0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
- 0
0
0
.0
0.0
Eapowro )
'3
s +
3.. -
s •
s OA
3 1.8.
s -
s
s.
s •
s. -
s. -
S . -
$ •
s -13.
-
s
-
3 -
f -' -
S 2A
Number
0
0
0
+
'.'. +
2
0
0
9
0
0
'0
0
0
0.1
EapwAe ISM)
S
s -
S -
s 2.0
6. 0.2
s 0.6
S
&0:
s
6 . -
31.5
s
S. -
s -
S-
8 -
8
9,2
0 CIA
f 48A
Poly NO
Fhttihar
0
o
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
1
0-
0-
0
0
0A
0.0
Egmuro l3M)
s
s -
S •
-6 •
s.
-
s •
S -
s -
$ -
$
s -
S -
S -
S •
s
f -
S -
3
WIMHeISbualun Fhe
w3
+
0
D
2
9
0
+
0
0.
0
2'
0-
0-
0
0
0'
0
6.8
0.8
Egmuro pMl
S +AO
s -
S
s 4:0
S +.8
$ •
s 0.6
$ -.
S -
s
$ 7.0
$ •.
s -
s -
s -
s
$.
3 -
S 8.8
3 0.3
f 36.6
0
0
4
3
o
z
0
0
0
0.
0
0
o
o
s.+
o.z
6x6osuro aM)
3 9+.0
B
3 BA
3 0.6
$
3 12
Q -
S . -
3 -IS.
-..-
3 - -.
3 -
3. -
i -
3
-
$
S .+
3 O+
3 1050
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
o
o
o
0
0�
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
)
•
S
-
s
00
+3.0
vrem wwq a a r.
l+1 Lows value is nest replacement valor in 2006 daRars. Value shown Is fond as count of masons at dsk Dam the Par6oular hazard Dmn hldh +nd unit asset value.
[21 Grand TOW Lam vaWS Shawn "O "W" the a=*%setaeowdedVMV4 * Mnwsfw dBforoM hazatda.'
tJ� s.o...meee< rape 8-.1
• WHOM Plan Maintenance
SECTION 6 PLAN MAINTENANCE
This section of the Plan describes the formal process that will ensure that the Plan remains an active and
relevant document. The Plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the
Plan annually and producing a plan revision every five years. This section describes how. MWDOC and
the participating districts and agencies will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance
process. Finally, this section includes an explanation of how jurisdictions intend to incorporate the
mitigation strategies outlined in this plan into existing planning mechanisms.
6.1 MONITORING, EVALUATING AND UPDATING THE PLAN
6.1.1 Plan Monitoring
The PWU participants will be responsible for monitoring the plan annually for updates to jurisdictional
goals; objectives, and action items. If needed, these participants will coordinate through the MWDOC to
integrate -these updates into the Plan MWDOC' will be responsible for monitoring the overall Plan for
updatcs.on an anmal basis.
61.2 Plan Evaluation
The Plan will be evaluated by MWDOC and by each participating jurisdiction at least every two years to
determine the effectiveness of programs, and to reflect changes in land development or programs that may
affect' mitigation priorities. The Plan will also be re- evaluated by BhMG leads (or their select
jurisdictional representative) based upon the initial STAPPLEE criteria used to draft goals, objectives,
and action items for each jurisdiction MWDOC and PWU representatives will also review the goals and
action items to determine their relevance to changing situations in the county, as well as changes in State
or Federal regulations and policy. MWDOC and PWU representatives will also review the risk
assessment portion of the Plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified, given any
new available data. The coordinating organizations responsible for the various action items will report on
the status of their projects, the success of various implementation processes, difficulties encountered,
success of coordination efforts, and which strategies should be revised Any updates or changes necessary
will be forwarded to MWDOC for inclusion in further updates to the Plan It is envisioned that the
WOW and each Local Mitigation Planning Team will meet annually to discus the status of the Plan
6.1.3 Plan Updates
MWDOC is the responsible agency for updates to the Plan working in conjunction with the PWU's. All
PWU participants will be responsible to provide MWDOC with jurisdictional -level updates to the Plan
when/if necessary as described above. Every five years the updated plan will be submitted to COESS and
FEMA for review.
6.1A Implementation Through Existing Programs
County and local jurisdictions will have the opportunity to implement recommended action items through
existing programs and procedures that are deemed appropriate. Upon adoption of the Plan, the multi-
•
ooa,�amrossoa 6 -1
SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance •
jurisdictional participants can use the Plan as a baseline of information on the natural hazards that impact
their jurisdictions. They will also be able to refer to existing institutions, plans, policies and ordinances
defined for each jurisdiction in Section 5 of the Plan (e g., General Plan, Comprehensive Plan).
6A.5 Continued Public Involvement
MWDOC is dedicated to involving the public.directly in review and updates of the Plan MWDOC and .a
representative from each participating jurisdiction will be responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the Plan as described above. During all phases of plan maintenance the public will have the
opportunity to provide feedback .
A copy of the Plan will be publicized and available for review on the MWDOC website (without the
detailed information). In addition, copies of the plan will be catalogued and kept at all of the appropriate
agencies in the county. The existence and location of these copies will also be posted on the county
website. The site will contain contact information for members of the HMWG to wbich.people candirect
their comments and concerns. All public feedback will be forwarded to the appropriate jurisdiction for
review and incorporation (if deemed appropriate). This information will also be forwarded to MWDOC,
responsible for keeping track of-public comments on the plan
A press release requesting public comments will also be issued after each evaluation or when deemed
necessary,by the HMWG. The press release will.direct people to the website or appropriate local agency .
location where the public can review proposed updated versions of the Plan This will provide the public •
an outlet for which they can express theirconcerns; opinions, or ideas about any updates/cbanges.that are
proposed to the Plan. The County Emergency Services Coordinator will be responsible for using county .
resources to publicize the press releases and maintain public involvement through public access channels,
web pages,. and newspapers as deemed appropriate.
•
KIM o�,mtism 6 -2
SECTIONSEVEN Befereeces
SECTION 7 REFERENCES
ABAG Dam Failure Inundation Hazards Guide,
httpJ/ www. abag. ca. gov/ bayarea /egrmps/damfailureldfguide.htral
City of Torrance, Los Angeles County, 2004. hM.-1 www.ci. torrance.ca us 19210.htin site accessed on
March 13, 2005.
D.L, Galloway, D.R. Jones, S.E. Ingebritsen,2005. httD:// water.uses.eov /ogw/pubs/600165/ USGS
Day, R W.., 1994. Swell- shrink behavior of compacted clay. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 120(3):618 -622.
FEMA website: www.fema.¢ov `Tornado Background" April 16, 2004; Accessed March 2006.
Gold, Scott, "Disaster Prompted $1.3 billion Effort to Tune Santa River, Protect Basin," Los Angeles
Times, October 3, 1999.
Krohn, J. P. and Slosson, J. E., 1980, Assessment of Expansive Soils in the United States:
Proceedings of the 4m international Conference on Expansive Soils, American society of
Civil Engineers, Y. 15, p. 596 -608.
... Leake, S.A.2004. Land Subsidence from Ground Water Pumping. USGS
http: // eochan eg er. usgs .gov /sw /changes/anthrot)ogenic /subside/
NOAA website: www.ncdc.noaa.eov "Query Results," March 13, 2006; Accessed March 2006.
http: //wikipedia.com
Orange County Haz Mau Plan
Rogers, J. David Ph.D., P.E., RG., httn : //web.umr.edu/ rogersda/expansive so ils /. site
accessed on March 13, 2005.
Tsunamis affecting the West Coast of the United States 1806 -1992. KGRD 29.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Project Flood Determinations; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Publication number EM 1110 -2 -141 (1965).
URS, Orange County Haz Mat Plan
Wtkipedta Encyclopedias "earthquakes " "faults" 2006; accessed March 2006
South Orange County Water Reliability Study, Phase 2 System Reliability Plan, Final Report, June 2004,
prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County
um o.m„eonoevsoc 7 -1
SECTIOISEVEN
Refemwes •
Determining the Value of Water Supply Reliability in Orange County California, September 2003,
prepared by Orange County Business Council for Municipal Water District of Orange County.
Five Earthquake Scenario Ground Motion Maps for Northern Orange County, July 22, 2005, prepared by
Earth Consultants International for Municipal Water District of Orange County.
Asset Management Plan 2005, Orange County Sanitation District, June 2005, prepared by staff and GHD.
�I
•
f cos 7 -2
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendieeg
o
C�1
Appendices
Appendix A HMWG Meetings
A -1
October 2005 Meeting
A -2:
November 2005 Meeting
A -3:
December 2005 Meeting
A -4:
February 2006 Meeting
A -5:
April 2006 Meeting
A -6:
June 2006 Meeting
A -7:
August 2006 Meeting
Appendix B Public Workshops
B -1: Summary
B -2: Quick Question Sheet
Appendix C Public Notification
C -1: October 17; 2005
C -2: July 5, 2006
C -3: August 25, 2006 .
Appendix D Executive Summary of the Value of a Reliable
Water Supply
Appendix E MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Data Matrix
Appendix G Participating Jurisdiction Adoption of Plan betters
O D.. .W%Da WMW 8 -1
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
Appendix A -1: October 2005 Meeting
MWDOC KICKOFF MEETING AGENDA
October 18, 2005
Introduction to Team and Project Goals
URS Presentation
• Work Group Responsibilities
• . Mitigation Planning Process
• Schedule
Information Sensitivity
For Official Use Only (FOUO)
Definition of Key Term
State Hazard Mitigation Plan Terms
Local Planning Team
Members
• Next Steps
Preliminary Hazard Identification
• Hazards Identified
• Hazard Profiles
Assets
Vulnerability Analysis
Nest Steps/Q &A
Future Meeting Schedule
Assignments
lum
ooa„emnaoaossoo 8 -1
•
•
• SECTIONEIGHT
MWDOC Meeting Summary
October 18, 2005
9:30 a m. —11:30 a.m.
Appendices
Kelly Hubbard (WEROC) opened the meeting with a brief summary of the project and self introductions
were provided. Kelly introduced URS as the consultant hired to prepare the hazard mitigation plan for the
water districts. Diane Douglas (URS), Project Manager, summarized URS qualifications to prepare the
hazard mitigation plan.
Diane initiated the presentation prepared to introduce hazard mitigation-planning to the group and
requested that the group perceive the presentation as an open-ended discussion. She encouraged questions
throughout the presentation, rather than waiting until the end of the presentation. All group members were
asked to state their name and affiliation when they asked questions so special information requested by
them could be acquired and delivered to them in a timely manner. Diane emphasized how it was going to
be critical during the planning phase to have all of the water districts co-operate as much as possible to
provide information to URS in a timely manner, and to attend and actively participate in the workshops.
This would be essential to, keep the costs down:and prepare a document that would be approved by
FEMA.
Important Notes:
♦ Participants Were recommended to review the Orange County HMP. Review the hazards
• identified by the Hazard Mitigation. Working Group (HMWG) so to determine if they wanted any
additional hazards addressed in their plan. Kelly will provide a copy of the document to all
patticipanits at the November meeting.
♦ It is important for each utility to identify the hazards that threaten their critical facilities and
infrastructure.
Diane led a discussion on the security of URS' GIS savers, and approach to confidential data.
URS signed a confidentiality agreement with MWDOC indicating that no information shared
from any participant would be shared beyond the URS project team, and that none of it would
appear in the public portion of the HMP.
Questions asked during the course of the presentation, or concerns expressed include followed by
URS answers fbllow: I I 1 1. ..
Karl Seckel(MWDOC): Is.there a focus on response & recovery and less money available.for mitigation?
Diane: Further down the road FEMA will be shifting the funding policies. If you don't have a
plan you won't be eligible for funding. They will look at whether you tried to make a plan, are .
working on a plan, or have a plan.
Theresa Mortiz (Newport Beach): Affirmation that information on all my facilities, all reservoirs is
required ?' Who will have access to that data?
Diane: There is separation between confidential data, like critical facilities data, that will be
protected by the confidentiality agreement that even during the public meetings there is no loss of
security. There is a necessary component of public participation. Those discussions will involve
hazard threats Find general concepts but no specific data or maps of the critical facilities and
• infiastructure.
Um
.m,soxoasoo 8 -1
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices •
Douglas: Is most of each district's data in GIS?
Theresa: About half -and -half.
Kelly: WEROC has some of the data for each water district and between our data and their data
we should almost cover the entire necessary infrastructure, critical facilities.
Theresa: Do we have to include things like offices, control stations?
Diane: It does help us. We need to get down to even the .financial level as to how you get your
funding, security, etc. FEMA needs to know where your money comes from in order to know
how much they may needto reimburse you in the case of an event.
Diane: What kind of security do you have? Is it provided by the city, private, etc.?
Kelly: Varies per agency-
Theresa: Who provides information on the hazards? Do we? Is it from everyone or just one water district
or one person in each water district?
Kelly Everyone should provide information on what they consider to be a risk
Diane: Provided an example of the San Diego wildfires and earthquake data. "We rely on more than just
local data. We go to. universities, research institutes, profiles of past events, non - documented information
such has verbal historical records, everything.that we can get our hands' on This information is processed
in a GIS database and modeled to show the hazards your facilities and infrastructure is susceptible to. •
Douglas reviewed how GIS works, how the hazard data is one (or several layers), community data is
another layer, and critical infrastructure for each jurisdiction will constitute another layer.
Douglas then reviewed Hazard Identification Vulnerability, Risk Assessment, Vulnerability Analysis and
Loss Estimate process.
Theresa: Do you want the costs to build or replace infrastructure?
Diane: Since much of your infrastructure may be several years old, it would be best to provide
replacement costs. When you're considering replacement costs, or the value of mitigation versus
replacement it is useful to consider what it would take to replace the facility. If a facility is
damaged who do you hire to fix it? Do you use inside resources or do you go to private
subcontractors? What is the temporary replacement? How much does that cost to operate?
Karl: From a facility standpoint we may have that information, but we can't estimate the cost of down
time or temporary/emergency replacement. So do we heed to look at population usage of our facilities?
Diane: Yes, from a critical facility standpoint this would be important. As an example, if you
have a large pipe or reservoir that several districts use to provide water to the public, as well as
hospitals, and other critical facilities, that is important to know. These would typically have
higher priority for replacement than a pipe that serviced only a restricted and non - critical
population
Karl: We have a "Value of Water Supply Reliability" study that was completed; would that be useful to
yo„?
8 -2
• SECTIONEIGHT Anpe�dices
U
•
Diane: Yes, that would be very useful.
Theresa: Do we need to show what fees we charge and where those fees go? -
Diane: We need to know your sources of funding. If fees provide one of your major sources of
funding, that is important information for us. We also need to know what grants you are.eligible
for, if you have partnerships with organizations that help support you, etc. This provides input to
the Capability Assessment section of the HMP.
Karl: Could you use our Water Rate Funds Annual Report? It is a spreadsheet report that shows the uses
of fiords for general operations.
Diane: Yes that data would be useful.
Theresa: Regarding our first homework assignment, could you re-email it to me? These was a problem
with the format.
Kelly: There were some formatting issues with the forms. I'll modify the format and rasend it to
everybody.
Theresa: At what level do you need data for worksheet #I?
Diane: Worksheet #1 is designed more:to get the working group members to start.thinldng about
their facilities from a risk and. hazard mitigation perspective. It is just general information at this
stage; more specific information will be requested later.
James Matte (OCSD): What abort roads that we use that may be outside of our jurisdiction? We
transport/ship waste to critical facilities in other regions and we don't own all the sites we're shipping to.
How do we handle that in the plan?
Diane: I'll ask FEMA how to address that issue. It would be pretty difficult to identify goals,
objectives and mitigation actions for every conceivable problem along the roads you drive to
multiple facilities in different counties and states. What do you do now if a road or route is closed
down? Do you have alternate means of transport? Railroad?
James: We don't use railroad. If a road goes out, we follow secondary routes to the facility we
deliver to.
Chuck Fowler (Buena Park): If it's a damn controlled by the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) that isn't
under our purview, what do we do about that in the case of a dam break? How do we mitigate against
something like that?
Diane: The State of California prepared a FM to cover infrastructure and critical facilities not
covered by local jurisdictions. The ACOE would have identified that hazard and mitigation
measures to protect the damn from failure.
Kelly H.: There area number of facilities owned by the water utilities that have the potential to be
affected by flood waters in the event of a release at dams outside of their purview.
Diane: The state would have covered damns outside of your purview. You can consider zoning
ordinances in floodplains downstream, or widening culverts, drainage ditches etc. that are in your
district that would help mitigate the effect of an upstream dam failure.
Theresa: Is that part of our homework?
o�m,�sonas�soo 8 -3
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
Diane: One of the things we need to consider in preparing the plan is what goes in the general
"up -front" section of the plan and what goes in confidential appendices that address each
jurisdiction's critical infrastructure. We'll need to come up with a draft outline that everyone
approves o£ The general section will address shared hazard vulnerabilities. Then there will be a
confidential general section that will have critical infrastructure, and how to mitigate those.
Individual sections will address infrastructum for reach jurisdiction. What we need to carefully
consider, is what. level of information goes in the public document that is reviewed by FEMA and
isopen to the public; and those elements that are reviewed but remain "for official use only," even
by those who review it.
Karl: How specific do we get in writing actual plan? If we identify general objectives, goals and actions
to mitigate against a hazard how do we expand on that during our application for funding later?
Diane: You have to mention general objectives, goals, and actions to mitigate hazards in the
HMP, and then you expand on that in your application But you have to be able to reference the
HMP.and . demonstrate that the type of project was approved by the HMWG and the governing
body who adopted the plan
Karl: MWDOC was originally looking at doing a very specific cast - analysis for each project proposed in.
the HMP but realized the cost would be prohibitive at this stage. Instead, MWDOC decided to create an
umbrella planthat would cover several types of projects including adding future planned projects.
Diane: URS advised MWDOC to wait for cost - benefit analysis until the'HMP is approved and
jurisdictions are ready to determine the cost benefit for mitigation for a specific project. She noted
that districts don't want to go through an expensive effort of cost benefit analysis for all potential`
projects they want to implement and then have a disaster occur that changes all your future plans.
She noted URS' San Francisco office. has an expert on cost benefit analyses.
Theresa: Does providing more information into the HMP makes it easier later, during the project stage.
Diane: Yes.
Karl: Asks how districts put into the plan issues such as providing back up power as a form of mitigation?
Diane: Districts need to consider prioritization of electricity to their more critical facilities.
Mitigating potential destruction of power stations or facilities that provide power to critical
facilities should* be prioritized.
Kelly: There are multiple pipelines operated by multiple parties, how do we include that data in the plan
and keep it secure from outside parties; as well as note that the information applies to different
jurisdictions.
Diane: Individual sections will be considered confidential. There can be one general section of
the plan that would be a public document without specifically identifying infrastructure resources,
and a second general section that would identify shared infrastructure that would be confidential.
Theresa: How would our individual sections be kept confidential?
Diane: If you look at the example of the San Diego Plan that is on the table, you'll see there is an
upfront section that has shared data and individual chapters for each participating jurisdiction. In
addition to those sections, a confidential appendix was prepared that is not open for public
8 -4
is
•
• SECTIONEIGHT APONfIces
•
U
purview under federal and state law. In this HMP there will be sections that show shared public
data such as the hazards and non-secure critical infrastructure, and then there will be confidential
sections.
Diane discussed the importance of demonstrating that the districts have cooperative agreements with
other jurisdictions (cities, county), and that these jurisdictions were informed of the process. FEMA likes
cooperation between jurisdictions.
Kelly: Kelly will notify the Orange County Emergency Management Organization (OCEMO),
which represents most cities, the county and special districts.
Diane: Provided an overview of the process of review, editing, and approval of the HMP.
It was noted that each jurisdiction's board of directors or city council will need to approve and adopt the
plan
Theresa: Noted that different jurisdictions have different processes that take varying amounts of
time, with some jurisdictions taking considerably longer than others. She wants to know how this
affects overall submittal of the plan to FEMA, approval, and accessibility to funding.
Diane: Will cheek with Robert McCord at FEMA to see whether all jurisdictions need to have
adopted theplan for individual jurisdictions who have adopted the plan to be eligible,for
receiving funding for a specific project Is there a way to get councils and board members
involved early to keep them from slowing down the adoption process?
KarL MWDOC will play a role in contacting management and elected officials to urge them
through the process.
Keith: There are so marry agencies involved and boards. Some agencies need this plan in order to
get future grants. If some of these agencies haven't approved the plan, will that slow down those
the approval of funding for jurisdictions that did get approval from their boards and councils?
Kelly: Who approves first, the jurisdictions or FEMA?
Diane: FEMA. Once they have approved then it's up to the jurisdictions to approve. We haven't
encountered tbat, where different councils have to pressure others to approve the implementation
phase. I will follow -up on this.
Theresa: We need to know whether or not if I get my approval to implement that I can go get my
funding for my future plans and that the lack of other jurisdictions approval won't slow down my
future plans or prevent me from going ahead.
Diane reviewed the Implementation Planning process, summarizing meeting structure, who should attend,
and other individuals within each jurisdiction that URS is meeting with to help implement the plan She
noted how important it is t6 document the process so that FEMA receives a clear record of the effort.
Theresa: What type of timetable are we looking at?
Diane: HMPs must be updated every three to five years, depending on the jurisdiction (local
versus state), and once your plan is approved you have to demonstrate what you did to-implement
that plan in order for the plan update to get funding and approval.
Kelly: if another jurisdiction comes along and wants to join or expand upon the plan can we do that?
9:ds J
Dn wfl%aoe-0 nc 8 -5
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices •
Diane: Yes. As an example, tribes or other jurisdictions that have not participated in a County
IR P can be rolled into that plan at a plan update.
Theresa: If we address large pipes used by several jurisdictions at the general/shared level can we still
address that large pipe in our own jurisdictional section?
Diane: Yes. While there will be an overall general plan section for shared infrastructure, you can
also address those sections in your own jurisdiction in your section. It is important to remember
that at the plan updates your jurisdiction is participating and that you are implementing the
projects and plans that you set in the beginning. During the updates you will also be able to
modify your goals and objectives and mitigation actions.
Theresa: We are currently working on updating our General Plan but we don't want to have to go back
and continually and update and amend it. Should we wait until this LIMP is done before we take our plan
to council?
Kelly: Yes, you should wait if you can.
Diane reviewed the process for evaluating and revising the plan, and updating the plan It will be
important to. determine.whether the people who work on this portion of the plan are the ones who will
participate in the implementation plan. She explained that for the San Diego implementation plan, fire
chiefs and police chiefs are participating in the implementation plan, but she and the IIMP team are
meeting with city planners and engineers to make sure the plan is being implemented (change to
ordinances, zoning changes, engineering needs).
Diane noted that during this stage and the implementation plan, it is key for the HMWG to understand
that they need to be able to go back to their jurisdictions and talk to experts and document the
communication process. FEMA wants to see that you've discussed all hazards, risks, goals and
objectives with your jurisdiction and other participating jurisdictions very thoroughly.
Kelly: Much of the information needed for the HMP is already in agency Vulnerability Assessments and
ERPs, and it just needs to be pulled from those resources.
Diane: We are scheduled to prepare the HMP in seven months and this process usually takes one year.
She reiterated that everyone will need to work together to meet the project deadline. Meetings are
scheduled monthly for seven months, and participation will be critical because copies of the sign -in-
sheets go in the appendix. FEMA'wants to see active participation
Kelly: Asked who has submitted project applications since the January storms. Three districts respond
that they have submitted Notice of Intents (NOI) for future projects.
It was requested that attendees give Kelly a list of who will be participating in the working groups and to
provide a second contact for each district The group agreed to continue to meet in the same facility on the
third Tuesday of every month from 9 am. to noon
Action Items
•
Um ooa...nuaa-=soc 8 -6
• SECTIONEIGHT
U]
•
Upendices .
URS will ask FEMA about the following items:
1. Responsibility of agencies for transport routes to sites that are outside of their jurisdiction.
2. Ability of jurisdictions that are involved in a multi jurisdiction plan to apply for mitigation grant
funding if all of the jurisdictions have not yet adopted the plan
URS will provide worksheets for the second meeting by October 26, 2005 Jurisdictions will prepare
worksheet 1 and 2 and provide them to Kelly Hubbard and Diane Douglas by Nov 11. That information
will be integrated into presentation to be given at.the November 15, 2005 meeting.
oam�a +w�cos�soc 8 -7
SECTIOREIGHT
Kick off Meeting Sign -In Sheet, Oct 18, 2005
Titre/ Affiliation
W/Q Supervisor
Supervisor City G.G.
City of Buena Park Water Quality Inspector
SMWD
MCWD
MWDOC
Analyst/ City ofNew Port Beach
Safety & Health Supervisor/ Orange County Sanitation District
URS Corporation
URS Corporation
WEROC
Appendices
Phone/ Emsiv Contact Info.
Phone
zaFlcbfal�ardengrove�or8
rbermudezt gardengrove.org
741 -5917
cfowl2E@buenarnrk.c0m
ronmftmwd.com
949 -459 -6544
949 -574 -1022
¢ordonamesawater.ore
x161
kseckel(tmwdoc.com
714- 593 -5024
tmocitv.n avert- beach.ca.us
0mattaa ocsd com
714- 593 -7155
kh�on(n�mwdoc.com
714 -593 -5609
diane douglss(ulurscow.com
619 294 -9400
mark carelWur wM.com
619 294 -9400
khubbard(atmwdoc.com
714 -593 -5010
o�,��nsoaoa�soc 8 -1
0
•
•
i
• SECTIONEIGHT Apiendiees
r1
APPENDIX A -2: NOVEMBER 15, 2005
HAZMIT AGENDA
NOVEMBER 15, 2006
Review: "Where Are We Now?"
Schedule
• Key Dates/Near -Tern, Long-Term -
Risk Assessment Part 1: Hazard Identification
Orange County HMP Hazards Identified
Additional Hazards?
Man-made Hazards
Risk Assessment Part 2: Profiling Hazards.
• Mapping Hazard "Location" (Geographic Area)
Mapping Hazard "Extent" (Magnitude or Severity)
Mapping/Describing "Previous Occurrence,
■ Mapping/Describing "Probability of Future Events"
FEMA Checklist
Risk Assessment Part 3: Inventory Assets
• Asset List (Existing and Future)
Map locations of ALL identified assets (Existing and Future)
• Replacement Values for ALL assets (Existing and Future)
• Summary Worksheets
Risk Assessment Part 4: Estimate Losses
• GIS Overlay Analysis of each hazard with existing/proposed assets
• Loss Estimations based upon results
Worksbeet Roundtable
Hands -on roundtable workshop
(review /complete Worksheets 1, 2a, 2b and 2 summary tables)
What's Next?
Next Meeting —Time and Location
n=�I%.oao ww 8 -1
0 . 0
CA
PM
cia
C&
Sl
co
co
E
0
E
9
n
E
CA
m
ca
4.
r, -I
�mm M
co
col
E
E
SECTIONEIGHT Appenmees •
AGENDA
APPENDIX A -3:
DECEMBER 13, 2005
Review: "Where Are We Now ?"
Schedule
• Key Dates/Near-Tenn, Long -Tenn
Review: Hazard Identification
• Summary Hazard Worksheet
Review: Profiling Hazards
• Mapping Hazard "Location" (Geographic Area)
• Mapping Hazard "Extent" (Magnitude or Severity)
• Mapping/Describing "Previous Occurrences"
• Mapping/Describing "Probability of Future Events"
Where We Are: Inventory Assets
• Summary Worksheets
• Asset List (Existing and Future)
• Map locations of ALL identified assets (Existing and Future)
• Replacement Values for ALL assets (Existing and Future)
Next Step : Estimate Losses
• GIS Overlay. Analysis of each hazard with existing/proposed assets
• Loss Estimations based upon results
GIS Map Roundtable
Hands -on roundtable workshop
Review 11x17 versions ofoverall map
What's Next?
Next Meeting —Jan 17, 2006
City of Garden Grove, Courtyard Center
12732 Main Street; Garden Grove; CA 92940
oa..od,maoeoa�sua 8 -1
•
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
U]
•
MWDOC Meeting Summary
December 13, 2005
9:00 A.IvL
Kelly Hubbard of MWDOC opened the meeting with a brief summary of the Hazard Mitigation Planning
project and recapped the project status. She introduced URS, the consultant hired to help prepare the
Hazard mitigation plan for the water/wastewater districts /agencies. Hubbard also made an announcement
for 30 days of compensated volunteer need requested by FEMA to help emergency rescue plan efforts in
Louisiana
Hubbard's opening statement was followed by introductions around the room, then, Angela Leiba,:URS
Deputy Project Manager, introduced two new staff members working on this project, Senior GlS Analyst
Camille Lill and Environmental Analyst Gulsum Rustemoglu. Lill will be responsible for coordinating
with each district and/or outside agencies to obtain all assets and hazard data for the planning process.
Once data is collected, Lill we be responsible for creating all maps and tables associated with the Risk
Assessment portion of the plan. , Rustenoglu will maintain responsibility for tracking, collecting, and
helping to complete all homework assignments for each participating district/agency. Rustemoglu will
also take the lead on completing the two summary worksheets that will be integrated into the Plan (the
Summary Hazard Worksheet which will identify each district and their vulnerabilities to selected hazards
within the region and the Summary Assets Worksheet which is a culmination of Worksheets 1, 2a and
2b).
Following the introduction, Leiba gave a Power Point presentation summarizing the planning process and
the meeting's objectives. Leiba encouraged questions throughout the presentation She also encouraged
then to review the Orange County HMP, focusing on the. hazards identification, risk assessment, and
mitigation strategies presented in the Plan. Leiba went over the two Summary Worksheets which were
presented at the previous meeting and emphasized that both summary worksheets were required to start
the next phase of the planning process. Leiba also pointed out that the Risk Assessment portion of the
Plan cannot move forward without having completed data from each of the participating,
districts/agencies. Leiba focused on making sure each district completed.their Homework assignments
and compiled the three worksheets from the previous meeting onto the Summary Assets Worksheet to
ensure a complete listing of all existing and future assets were accounted for in the planning process.
Hubbard added explanation to the group that with the passing of the Disaster Mitigation Act in 2000
federal mitigation funding would only be available to districts/agencies with a Hazard Mitigation Plan in
D...ffl%O"MDG 8 -1
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices •
place. Hubbard and Leiba encouraged active involvement from the districts to help assure future
mitigation funding.
After the introduction and Power Point Presentation around -table GIS mapping session occurred. Lill
had prepared 2 copies of the current "Asset Map" including any existing future asset information that had
been provided up to date. Lill and Leiba asked each district to come review the map individually with
them, review all homework assignments and verify status of their Two Summary Worksheets. While this
was taking place, Hubbard and Rustemoglu worked with each district to answer questions and help
complete Homework assignments.
Issues Raised at the Meeting
• " What 'does the term of "Function Value" exactly mean? Functional Value is the value of the
assets loss (e.g. the loss of "value" of that asset). An example was given by Leiba, that if a water
pump went down due to an earthquake and water was not able to be pumped to a partici lar
`neighborhood, the "loss of revenue" to the district would be considered part of it's "functional
value", the loss to the Starbucks on the corner that was not able to produce coffee for it's
customers was not. Rustemoglu to .verify with FEMA this is the correct definition as intended for •'
the planning process.
• The term "Critical Facilities" shows both on Worksheet 2a and on the Summary Asset
Worksheet. What does the term "critical" refer to? Leiba responded that ALL districttagency
assets need to be identified under that column. The word "critical" can be deleted. These FEMA
'worksheets were developed initially for general communities that would have critical and non-
critical facilities, not water/wastewater districts.
Districts wanted to know who they could send their data to. Member were directed them to send
their data directly to Hubbard who would forward them to the respective person at URS.
Action Items
• . Jurisdictions should submit any GIS data, maps, contact information, or asset addresses to
Hubbard to be forwarded to Lill.
• A status sheet showing homework submitted, GIS data received etc. (per district/agency), and any
data gaps will be sent by Rustemoglu to Hubbard by December 29, 2005.
•
8 -2
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendkes
• Districts /agencies will finalize missing parts of their homework (including Worksheets I, 2e, and
2b, the Summary Hazard Table and the Summary Asset Table), and e-mail them to Hubbard to be
forwarded to URS.
Un o,M,soaasbo 8 -3
I
CA
M
CL
Hl
co
ca
E
m
E
r
11
co
co
co
co
co
W
E
m
w
�rl
11
CL
co
N
11
• SEC1i0NEIGHT
APPENDIX A-4:
Introductions: Kelly Hubbard
Power Point Presentation: Diane Douglas
Where Are We Now?
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
AGENDA
• Data received to date
• Status of traps showing assets
• GIS overlay analysis of each hazard with existing/proposed assets
• Loss Estimations based upon results
• Introduce Goals, Objectives and Action Worksheets
• Introduce Capability Assessment Worksheet
Q&A
• BREAK 15 min
• GIS Map Roundtable: each agency review 134,000 state maps of assets
• 'Discuss worksheets & summary worksheets (Q & A)
■ Modify Capabilities Assessment. Wmkshcet for Water Districts
What's Next?
Next Meeting — March 14, 2006
City of Garden Grove Courtyard Center
12732 Main Street, Garden Grove, CA 92840
Appendices
ooa.nemiY Oceos s[ 0 8 -7
SECTIONEIGHT
Summary of February 14, 2006
HWG Meeting
Appendices •
Regar ing the rnW
• Chuck from OCWD said that there are things missing that should be shown. Chuck will work
with Jeremy.
• Trabuco CWD — maps seem to be shifted slightly, so inaccurate and difficult to locate facilities.
Suggested showing only lines that are needed
• Westminster — Need to show some 6" lines.
• YLWD - Has 1 lift station, but City operates sewer system
• Newport — Pump & Lift stations appear to have the same symbol. 40+ Pressure Reducing Stations
missing. George will list needed changestrevisions.
• Karl — Would like less contrast in hills.
Goals:
Good idea for agencies to.provide updates to management and boards so no surprises during
board approval.
Goals should tie to other planning documents of Agency/city— consistency. ,
Could use goals from the VAs, MasterPlans and Urban Water Management Plans.
Other:
• Several agencies should reference the Irvine/IRWD Hazl& Plan and identify how they are •
connected to IRWDdrvine.
YLWD needs fire mitigation for facilities along the Chino Hills State Park
• Growth: Facilities strictly related for growth don't qualify for HazNt Project Grants, but can
qualify if the project improves.reliability to existing customers.
•
.. ooa.••M,�oa.os�sa3 8 -1
SECTIONEIGHT
APPENDIX A -5: APRIL 18, Z006
AGENDA
Self Introductions
Where Are We Now?
• Data received to date
Status of maps showing assets
GIS overlay analysis of each hazard with existing/proposed assets
Let's Work
• Hazmit Plan Grant
o Salary Info
o How's Worksheets
Capabilities Assessment Worksheet
• .Goals, Objectives and Action Worksheets
• • Reservoirs w/ Dams Discussion
What's Nest?
■ Hazards Maw
Loss Estimations
r.
Neat Meeting — May 16, 2006, 9 am -12 noon
City of Garden Grovc, Courtyard Center
12732 Main Street, Garden Grove, CA 92840
•
Appendices
o,a..VUWoamtaoo 8 -1
u
•
SECTIONEIGHT
E
0
Ak
tiue7 Y..a 4*4:'t35 ,#$a :7
4
tA- �jaem
Appendices •
m i.�♦ .®./F�.� -. � �.`�.... ._... �`Ea�: �eiir - '�4xe� >!°t1.. .s1ls"i�.
•
Im 8 -2
R93 IWO
e
»9L72J,
(
•
Im 8 -2
SECTIONEIGHT A00endices
MEETING NOTES
SUBJECT: Notes to Apr 18, 2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan Workgroap meeting.
Today's attendance: Kelly allowed agencies' reps that have completed the forms to leave early. So,
ETWD, OCWD & MNWD left early.
Tracking of agencies' staff work time:
Kelly provided spreadsheets for agencies to complete on a monthly basis to list hours worked on the
HazMit Plan. The spreadsheets will be emailed to the agencies along with Kelly's records of past
meeting attendance, and the agencies are requested to complete the form for prior work time even though
that time may not be eligible for reimbursement or used toward the 25% matching funds.
The agencies were requested to. provide the total dollar compensation/hour for each employee that works
on the HazMit Plan.
Chuck Fowler had a question about the timing for filing the reports to Kelly. Kelly wants monthly re ports,
so when are they due (say by the 10'h?) after the month has been completed? Kelly probably. needs to
check the FEMA reporting deadline.
Maps:
Handout distributed.
Kelly reported that the 241 & 261 toll roads will be added to the maps.
URS will provide a hazard analysis table for each agency. But, URS will not provide individual agency-
maps., Instead, URS will provide regional maps (k water plus k wastewater) with each participating .
agency outlined. If the agencies want individual maps, we can coordinate with CDR for a price. .
Terresa said that NB might have GIS maps for inundation zones. And Renzo said that he will check for
ETWD. This needs follow up.
Kelly requested that agencies identify (provide a list) of their assets that are within inundation zones. It
was not clear to me, but I beheve that Kelly has PDF files of inundations zones ??
Kelly needs to check with IRWD for an inundation zone map related to.Irvine Lake for the cities of
Orange and Tustin, and Serrano if they stay in the process.
Kelly reviewed the 5 hazards that will not be mapped And, agencies need to let Kelly know if they want
any of these hazards included, and they need to provide info about the hazards that they want included
Draft Table of Contents of Plan:
Handout distributed
Hank from YLWD asked if groundwater contamination would be included as .a hazard. Kelly replied that
it would not be specifically listed.
Volume 1 will be general (basically a description of processes to produce the Plan) and a public
document. So, agencies need to comment if they discover info that should not be public.
In Volume 2, general goals and objectives (that apply to all agencies) will be listed at the beginning.
Each agency's Volume 2 information will be provided to only that agency. However, agencies may
choose to share information regarding common issues and projects — it is up to the agencies to do that.
Kelly reported about the b.C. trip.
•
o��maon-0suoc 8 -1
SECTIANEIGHT Uoendlees
Capabilities Assessment Worksheets:
Kelly wants these completed and submitted electronically by April 28.
Kelly reviewed the worksheets with the participants in detail, and answered numerous questions.
Regarding the L and Regulatory Capability, a better understanding of the meaning of "L. A post -
disaster recovery ordinance" would help. Kelly thought that Laws and Regulations would be included in
Ordinances, but Ordinances are technically different.
Regarding M, Real estate..., an agency listed might include the State Realty Board.
Other agenciesrurisdictions that might be listed include Airports, agencies that oversee digging related to
Native Indian and other arcVpaleo artifacts.
Regarding T, it should be listed as the "Water Code" rather than Title 22 or Title 17.
Regarding the Admin & Technical Caoacity, agencies such as the State Division of Oil & Gas might be
listed, colleges and universities, and the USGS.
Also, some agencies might include field personnel if they participate in the planning of mitigation .
projects.
Goals & Objectives:
Kelly reviewed, and asked the agencies to start considering. The Goals/Objectives will be due 2 Weeks
after the May meeting (so by May 26). The Goals/Objectives should look out at least 5 years, but
agencies can chase to look further. Also, the Goals/Objectives should be approved by the agencies'
management and/or Boards/Councils.
Other Time- table:
Kelly's timeline is to complete the workgroup meetings in June, and have Boards/Councils approvals of
the Plan during the summer.
odn, a oa miauo 8 -2
0
r
U
•
Ll
m
, J
i
No
- it,
11
2c
tirl
co
CD
Co.
11
i vi 7-
W11
...........
-d
.jk
-p%
------ ----
I S,
r-c
. . . . . . . . . . .
U,
41iz
,
6
Mitt,;
Aye-
i;ad
V''A"Y
, J
i
No
- it,
11
2c
tirl
co
CD
Co.
11
SECTIQNEIGHT A006 New •
APPENDIX A -6: JUNE 20, 2006
AGENDA
Introductions: Kelly Hubbard
Power Point Presentation:' Diane Douglas
Open Question and Answer Format for Presentation
Where Are We Now? Working Session
• Data received to date
• Ova-view hazards maps/risk analysis
• Loss estimations based upon results
• Status of Capability Assessments .
• Status of Goals/Objectives and Actions
Q &A
Homework •
Unfinished Worksheets (Last Call!)
Jurisdiction Descriptions:
• Govanment Structure and Governing Board
• General Operation Description (may include purpose)
• Source of Water& Percent
Some district/city websites,provide this tnformailon but many don't. Most websites just have detailed
histories. Either provide link'to source of it formation or brief description of operations.
What's Next?
• Next Meeting — Tuesday, July 18, 2006
MEo�+saa-0auoc 8 4
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendices,
Hazard Mitigation Working Group Meeting
Summary of June 20, 2006
If you missed this meeting, there will be additional items sent to you via email and postal mail. Please Call
me when you received these items.
If you are one of the agencies who at the meeting did not receive your maps or spreadsheets, please let me
know. I will be tracking who receives them and still needs them.
Homework (DUE FREDAY, JULY 7,2006):
• Items listed on Agency Memo
o Goals & Objectives note: a general guideline is 10 to 15 goals with approximately 6
action items per. goal.
• Review of Loss Estimation spreadsheets
•
Review of "Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Exposure Value by Jurisdiction"
• Review of Maps & GIS Data Sheets (will be emailed or on a FTP site by end of the week)
• June Labor Hours (as well as any hours prior to June)
Public Meetings:
• Proposed Month: August
+ More Information to come on how the meetings will be noticed Suggestions included:
o MWDOC website
o Q & A Sheet on website
o Online survey
o Green Ad
• North County Community Meeting
o Potential Locations: Tustin or Newport Beach
• South County Community Meeting
o Potential Locations: Santa Margarita or Moulton Niguel .
Timeline: This timeline is a working document, meaning it will probably change as 1 review the materials
and assess our progress.
• Homework Due (7/7106)
• Jurisdiction Appointments (wk of 7/10/06) — I have requested that URS meet with each agency
and myself to review any of your changes/corrections or questions to ensure no further confusion
of the materials.
• Public Notice of Community Meetings (7/21/06)
Community Meetings (August wks 213)
• URS First Draft Document (9 11106)
• MWDOC Review (9 /15/06).
• URS Second Draft Document (9/29/06)
• Jurisdiction Review & OES Initial Feedback (10/13/06)
• URS Final Drab Document (10/27/06)
Attached-
Lm 000,CW%4a�oo 8 -1
SECTIONEIGHT Apcendices •
• Hazard Mitigation Plan outline
• Summary Asset Sheet (FYI: we filled in the blanks together at the January apts.)
INSERT JUNE SIGN IN SHEET
40
A
• SECTIONEIGHT
APPENDIX 7: AUGUST 15, 2006
AGENDA
WEROS South EOC, 26081 Via Pera, Mission Viejo
Draft Plan Review (Copies Distributed)
• General Overview
• Sections 1-4, and 6-7 — Conceptual Review
• Section 5 — Review of Individual Jurisdictional Information
Public Meetings Discussion
• Notifications
• Confidential Information
• Attendance
Board Meetings & Approvals
• • Document Status
• . WEROC / MWDOC Attendance
What's Neat?
• Draft Plan Review Comments —Due by Friday, August 25, 5pm
• Public Meetings .
o September 12, 2006, 5-7pm @ Tustin
o September 14, 2006, 5 -7pm @ MNWD
Final Draft in Hand — October 13, 2006 5pm
• Board Approvals — October & November -
• OES & FEMA Approvals — October & November
• December Meeting— _
o Maps Discussion & Final Plan Copies
o SEOC, December 12, 2006, 10 -noon
o Join in for an optional lunch (on your own) to celebrate completion
•
Appendices
URS Dow "W4Dda SDG 8 -1
SECTIONEIGHT Apuepdices
Hazard Mitigation Planning Group Meeting. Draft Review
August 15, 2006
South EOC, 9am -12pm
Kelly Hubbard-
- Recognize significant problems are still in document
- URS is no longer responsible for written documents, just maps, tables, final printing, some
assistance with public meetings
- Kelly is the new "go-to" person on the plan
- Today is feedback day on Content & Quality of the plan Please do not make massive changes
because of grammar.
- HMWG stands for "Hazard Mitigation Working Group" and refers to the multi agency group
meetings run by Kelly.
- LPG stands for "Local Planning Group" and.refers to the group of individuals at each agency that
assisted in the research and preparation of this plan
Sections 1-4, 6-7 are general sections (FEMA required)
- Table of Contents, references to tables and charts need to be reviewed and corrected
- Appendix & Acronyms list need to be added to the front of the document
Section 1- Introduction (FEMA required wordingtooncepts/etc)
PWU: Participating Water Utilities, includes water and wastewater utilities
Add general wastewater description including SARI line in section one. It is important to include
the SARI line.
Section 2- Participants- Jurisdiction Descriptions
URS tried to make consistent agency descriptions, covering
1. General Service Area
2. Who & What Serving
3. Governing Structure
Section 3- Planning Process
3 -12 Participant list- main contact people highlighted, discrepancy with who should be
highlighted, title corrections, etc- let Kelly know
Section 4- Risk Assessment Overviews
Pg 4.3- Which Hazards are considered- Write up of Hazards begins pg 4.7
In 4.3.2, Contamination/Salt Water Intrusion should add potential for contamination of
groundwater by unknown substance. History could include MTBE, was used as a mandated
gasoline additive that leaked from underground storage tanks and contaminated the groundwater.
Another contaminate is Perchlorate — several basins have detected this chemical in groundwater,
which percolated in the basin from manufacturing plants of rocket fuel. OC WD should have good
history.
4.3.4, Drought/Extreme Heat -could use improvement?
M ..A%n Oda oc 8 -1
0
•
•
.SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
In 4.3.9, remove ">25 Percent" from title because it is confusing, and add it to the description in
4.3.9.1, Nature of Hazard.
Pg 4.7- Coast Stones and Tsunamis- need write up about Coastal Storms
Pg 4.9- Disaster History- An agency with specific disaster /events should let Kelly know to
include and or give her a brief write up about it
•Sahwater Intrusion, wastewater needs a better write up
Pg 4 -10 Dams and Large reservoirs- if have additional feedback, please give to Kelly.
Still need section on Prado Seepage
Pg 4-11 Chart is based on county HMV (not summary assets) [thus one of ETWD dams are.
unaccounted for]
Pg 4-24- Floods need a write up- damage to wastewater, January 2005 floods
Pg 4.27 - High Winds- Santa Ana: potentially large affect on power supply; trees falling and pipes
being uprooted
Pg 4.28 Landslide, Slope Failure. need to add Bluebird Canyon 2005 (SCWD)
Pg 432- Tornados- Water Spout
Pg 4.35- Wildfires
Pg 4.3.13- Manmade Hazard: Haz Mat release or terrorism
Pg 4-44- numbers are skewed because it includes METS numbers. Individuals compared values
to that, of their agency's equipment and, found large differences in amounts. Kelly will look into
• making a regional vs. local cost sheet or decrease MET values?
Switch location of pages 4-44 and 4- 45.4 -45 quantifies the number of facilities and then 4-44
adds the replacement cost. Placing 4-44 closer to the retraining tables might make it easier for the
reader to notice the explanations of the abbreviations listed on 4-44, and the abbreviations are not
used on 4-45.
Pg 4-45- Table 4.4-2: OCWD, SMWD, TCWD, MNWD, and. Tustin have corrections:that need to
be made to their numbers. Tustin stated that they have about 14,500 Potable Service Connections
instead of 14,000, and SMWD has greater than 1 Hydrants.
Table 4.4-3 - based on facilities -location and agency hazard maps
- computer program does hazard analysis
- facility listed under highest potential damage/hazard
- Despite appearing disproportionate, high values were discussed as beneficial to agencies future
ability to request adequate grants for repair, regardless of the damage in the firture, even if value
seems larger than needed now.
- Clear notation (footnote?) will be made to state that numbers are based on highest cost of 25
regional agencies
Add notes to tables 4.4-3 and forward to the effect that the value is based on the highest value
facility, and ensure that there are descriptions of moderate, high and extreme earthquakes (same
for Fire threat), and reference to the page/section.-
- ModexaWitigh earthquake threats need explanation of levels on charts, add references to the table
(table 4.4 -3, table 4.4-4)
- Fire Threat is based on County Map
• Need to add:
oo n mn, awasw 8 -2
SECTIONEIG14T appendices
- 100 year flood pdf map
- Tables reformatted to fit page
Good explanations for where maps and charts carne from, data used
*Table 4.4 -15- check what measurements are used- miles, $, etc
* On table 4.4-15 and forward, identify in the title of the chart what PWL and W WL stands for.
"Inventory of Potable Water Line (PWL) and Waste Water Line (W WL) By Jurisdiction ". Also, clarify
that the numbers in the chart represent "miles of pipe ".
Chuck from OCWD questioned abort using "potable", "non - potable" and "wastewater" instead of just
potable and wastewater.
*Add note that only major pipelines are included in numbers, not smaller ones (< 12")
Section 4.4.3- Cost of losing water service (for both agency and public). Some Earthquake redundancy
Section will be integrated better
*4.4.3 Earthquake faults are located in S. California, not OC
Section 5- formatting (reads Section 4- Risk Assessment, page numbers)
Section 5- - Wastewater will be added to section five under regional considerations.
-"Have-nots" depend on sewer trunks
-There is a regional overview/review for approval and Master Plan to abide by for
Wastewater fixing
Wastewater regional facilities will have a separate section at front of document`
-In section five, Karl suggested adding the agencies' names as a header to help the reader.
* Joint Loss estimation table will be renamed. (It is currently unclear and vague)
* Mention of Regional Water Quality Control Board should now also include
State- due to new regulations
*4- 170 -OC WD- missing "A"
In section 7, the Orange County Haz Mat Plan is listed — it probably should be 'Mt". "Also, the
header is section seven, but the first line says section 5.
WEROC will try e- mailing out maps, if not we will burn cds and send out maps that way
Comments and Revisions are due by 5pm next week Friday August 25, 2006.
A bard copy summary sheet was passed around. Based off that sheet, Kelly will adjust the
numbers on all other tables and charts. Individual agencies are responsible for correcting the
information in their written sections in the plan
All agencies represented agreed to making the plan a Public Document that will be posted online.
Upcoming Public Meetin¢s
8 -3
•
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
Press Release: WEROC/MWDOC will put out regional press releases the last week of August/first week
of September. A copy of the press release has been distributed and can be published in individual
agencies local newspapers.
Bill Inserts: Already distributed to agencies
Public Notification
thus far by Agency
SCWD-
'h customers receivedinsert in water bill, Insert available at front desk, Local press
release, website
SOCWA-
website
OCWD-
website
Orange
local press release/ad,. Website
Tustin
local newspaper (looking into), Insert at front counter, Website, City cable TV station
YLWD
website, local newspaper
La Habra
website, City newsletter, City cable TV channel
SMWD
TBD
ETWD
website, newsletter
TCWD
website, Front desk
MNWD
bill insert, Website
Newport
City cable channel, place notice at public library, website
Garden Grove website, billing
9, •
Handouts at
Public meeting will be available for review by PIO, GM's, and elected officials at least I
week prior to public meeting
ETWD, TCWD, SOCWA, and Newport are missing significant portions of their written documents.
Public comments must be received by the end of that week- September 1.5
Hard copy drafts and Comment cards will be available at the meeting.
The meeting will be "open house" style- see a PowerPoint presentation explaining Hazard Mitigation
Grant Planning Process, see maps, drafts, and ask questions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * **
Board Approval
Regarding the agencies taking the Plan for Board/Council approval, Newport Beach probably will do in
November, and OCWD will take to Committee and the Board in November.
Work VERY hard to get draft approval from board by early November. All boards need to approve
because they will be getting approved by agency boards, OES, and the OA at the same time.
Remember that it is a dynamic, living document and adjustments can be noted for future changes, but
approval is needed now to allow grant requests.
•
U
8-4
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
October 13- a final draft of the plan will be available in CD format for the elected officials to approve,
however, the committee approval process can begin prior so that the board can approve by early
November.
Summary:
August 25- Final Agency Revisions due in hard copy format to Kelly
September 12- North County Public Meeting
September 14- South County Public Meeting
October 13- Final Draft of Plan distributed for elected boards approval
October/November- Board Approvals
o«nnamaasoc 8 -5
J
r1
U
0
C�
J
•
SECTIONEIGHT
rl
41
Hazard Mitigation Meeting
August 15, 20o6
Sign -In
MWDOC
Tustin
I /i��
SCWD
ETWD
Orange
TCWD
La Habra
City of Newport
SOCWA
• �1U1
Grove
Appendices
o..,.n. tm,o �DG 8 -1
SEC TIONEIGHT
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
B -l: Summary
B -3: Quick Question Sheet
Appendices •
0
Ms peon so� 84
•
( •
SECTIONEIGHT Apuendices
Appendix B4,
Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater
Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan
Public Workshops — Recap
Location: Tustin Community Center
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA
Date: September 12, 2006
Time: 5-7 p.m.
Number of
People Attending:
10 Community members, including two representatives from the Orange
County Grand Jury
12 Water and /or wastewater service providers
22 Total
Service Providers Represented:
City of Buena Park (Chuck Fowler)
City of Garden Grove. (Robert Bermudez, Zack Barrett)
City of La Habra (Jerry Wander)
Gitjr of 1rrt.Btr,.(Tsa Mares)
City of Orange (Sonny Tran)
City of Westminster (Vivian Filippelli, Todd Miller)
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Director Larry Dick
Karl Seckel
Kelly Hubbard
Michelle Tuchman
Keith Lyon
Questions /Comments by Community Members:
1. How is salt water prevented from entering the aquifer in the event of an earthquake?
2. Maybe you could differentiate in the legend between blind- thrust faults and other faults
on Figs. 2 & 4. Puente Hills and San Joaquin Hills shouldn't be projected to surface as
other faults on (other) figures area
3. If WEROC is heading up the preparation a Hazard Mitigation Plan, then why isn't
WEROC reviewing and advising the City of Tustin to mitigate the location of a new well
by moving it to a. "safee location?
4. Who is responsible for responding to a Hazardous Material issues? What are the
"guaranteed" response times and who determines where they respond first?
he�L.
SECTIONEIGHT Apaeil ices •
5. The emergency preparedness coordinator from a local hospital attended the meeting to
find out about water and wastewater preparedness planning. He had a general interest
in the risk maps, how the water and wastewater community would respond to various
situations and was Interested in participating in test exercises with his local water
supplier: He was put in contact with his water provider.
6. An Interested homeowner asked about the feasibility and availability of test kits for water
quality purposes to determine if water was safe to drink during a disaster. His main
interest was being self sufficient to test water for safety.. We discussed how the water
community would communicate with the public, through radio and television publicity,
regarding whether or not water is safe to drink. One problem with the concept of "kits" is
that there are many items to test for in addition to the typical tests for bacteriological
safety and adequate chlorine residual
7. What are the difference s in how private and public water utilities are regulated? In terms
of emergency preparedness, water rates, and water quality.
8. Why is IRWD not part of the.pian?
9. Who was the primary author of the plan and was HATCUS used to generate some of the
charts and tables?
10. Please explain the relation between the maps, charts, and tables, and what does it tell
us about each utilities situation.
11. What are the water utilities experience regarding coordination with the County, cities,
and private companies? As interdependencies been.discussed7
o�..�«m eoa os soc 8-2
KI
•
• SEC?IONEIGHT
Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater
Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan
Public Workshops —Recap
Location: Moulton Niguel Water District
27500 La Paz Road
Laguna Niguel, CA
Date: September 14, 2006
Time: 5-7 p.m.
Number of
People Attending:
5 Community members
21 Water and /or wastewater service providers
26 Total
Service Providers Represented:
•
El Toro Water District (5)
Jerry Werner, Director
John Dudley, Director
William Kahn, Director
Ted Martin, Director
Bob Hill
Laguna Beach County Water District (Christopher Regan)
Moulton Niguel Water District (4)
.Tom Stephenson
Todd Wovacek
Ray McDowell
Carol Sanders
Appendices
CRY of Beach, :, .. .
Santa Margarita Water District (Ron Meyer, Steve Francis)
South Coast Water District (Mike Dunbar, Mark Cole, Linda Homscheid)
Trabuco Canyon Water District (Hector Ruiz)
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Karl Seckel
Kelly. Hubbard
Michelle Tuchman
Keith Lyon
Questions/Comments by Community Members:
• 1. Five years is too long between plan updates.
ooah en,e oaac soc 8 -3
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices •
2. We have a natural landscape in South County that would accommodate a "Diamond
Valley" concept. Why not build a Diamond Valley lake in South County?
3. A general overview of how we developed the Plan was requested.
4. General comments regarding community involvement and how nice it was for the
different Agencies to develop a Plan.
5. Questions regarding water quality and water availability during drought.
6. Another resident was interested in the ability to mobilize a treatment facility to provide
potable water for communities during emergency situations. A discussion occurred
about the BUREC mobile water treatment system that was relocated from New Mexico
to Louisiana during the Katrina recovery effort. In that case, the mobile water treatment
system was operating and producing potable water within about a week to provide water
to a hospital and for the local community. The same system could help recovery efforts
in Orange County to a certain extent, but could not produce water in the large quantifies
needed to meet demands for large portions of the County. We discussed the need for
the public to be prepared to be without the water system for at least 3 days and possibly
longer until recovery efforts are sufficient to allow the public systems to be placed into.
operation following a full battery of water quality testing.
7. One resident asked about the ability to drink water out of lake Mission Viejo. The
answer is that without considerable treatment, the Lake Mission Viejo water cannot be
consumed by the public. The Lake is an open reservoir open to the environment and
recreational uses and is home to many water fowl and so it would be extremely
dangerous to drink and would likely result in sickness.
8. After discussing the regional water system in Orange County and the need for
improvements in the water system serving south Orange County in the event an
earthquake or other occurrence interrupt imported supply. deliveries, one resident noted
his concern with the lack of reliability. The discussion included the need for residents to
be prepared at home to be self sufficient for 3 days or more and then that limited service
would begin to be restored., but that full restoration of the regional water system may
take as many as 20 or 30 days in the event of a large destructive earthquake.
9. A local Emergency Preparedness Team from the Laguna Woods Community was
interested in coordinating specifically between the hospitals and the water community.
The representatives were interested in the general background information provided and
to better understand what types of response would be expected from the water
community. Again, the issue was stressed that hospitals, as well: as residents, should
plan to be self- sufficient for 3 days or more until the regional.system can be restored.
The local water providers in south Orange County are planning.,on increasing the ability.
to meet drinking water needs from the current level of about 5 days (plus or minus) to
between 10, and 20 days.
10. How are agencies that are not participating in the regional Hazard Mitigation Plan with
MWDOC covered under the Hazard Mitigation Process? Several agencies have
independently completed Hazard Mitigation Plans for their service areas, but others are
not preparing the plans. 9 plans are not prepared, the ability to access pre- and post -
hazard mitigation funding is withheld by FEMA. The biggest obstacle to completion of a
.plan by an agency is the amount of work, including consultant and staff time, to develop .
and present all of the necessary information. That was one of the benefits of the 20 •
o�."m„seaasoc -8-4
• SECTIONEIGHT IUpeodices
agencies who have participated in the MWDOC effort — getting the economy of scale of
working together in a cooperative manner and at a reduced cost.
11. Other questions regarding. the water system in Orange County and how it is organized
were raised by various individuals.
•
aoa.n�n,a ncoc 8 -5
0
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
Appendix B -2
� Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater
'aror^srn cr Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan — Public Workshop
fflis
on.n.o.
CO11��
i
Hazard Mitination Planninn FACT SHEET
What is a Hazard Mitigation Plan?
A Hazard Mitigation Plan is a pre- disaster strategic plan written to guide how a community will lower its risk
and exposure to disasters.
Why prepare a Hazard Mitigation Plan?
Jurisdictions, like the water and wastewater agencies participating in the Regional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan, are
dedicated to ensuring service to their customers and to safeguarding those services when disaster strikes. Having an
approved Hazard Mitigation Plan helps meet that goal and also makes those jurisdictions eligible to receive Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants, which ease the financial impacts of emergency preparedness planning
and the response measures developed before and after natural and manmade disasters.
Who is preparing the Plan?
The Municipal Water District of Orange County is coordinating the efforts of 19 participating entities. (List of
participating water and wastewater service providers is on back.) URS Corporation is providing assistance. A grant
from FEMA is helping underwrite the cost of preparing the Plan.
What is the purpose of this workshop?
The 20-member Haurd Mitigation Working Group met for nearly a year— from October 2005 to June 2006— to identify the hazards that have significance for
Orange County water and wastewater entities and to assess the risks related to these hazards. Now it's ti me to share the information we've compiled with the public
and get your input. In particular, your comments will assist us in ensuring we have addressed the concerns of the public. Your input will also help us priontize
mitigation measures with appropriate implementation strategies.
What elements are included in the Plan process?
12, 2006
SECTIONEIGHT
Appenffices
When will the Plan be complete?
The Final Plan is scheduled to be presented for adoption by November 2006 to the boards of directors and
the city councils governing the 20 participating water and wastewater agencies. The Orange County Regional
Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan win be submitted to FEMA and the Office of Homeland
Security for approval.
Participating Water and Wastewater
Service Providers
Redional Service. Providers
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Orange County Water District
Orange County Sanitation District
South Orange County Wastewater Authority
. . Retail Agencies
City of Buena Park
El Toro Water District
City of Garden Grove
Laguna Beach County Water District
City of La Habra
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Moulton Niguel Water District .
:pty.of Newpo
City of Orange
Santa Margarita Water District .
Serrano Water District
South Coast Water District
Trabuco Canyon Water District
City of Tustin
City of Westminster
Yorba Linda Water District
September 12, 2006
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices, •
APPENDIX C PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
C -1: November 15, 2005
C -2: July 5,. 2006
C -3: August 25, 2006
•
September 12, 2006
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
Appendix C -1
MWDOC PREPARES DISASTER PLANNING DOCUMENT
Cbuntywide Water District Plan to Cover Natural and Man -made Disasters.
A hazard mitigation plan that identifies risks posed by natural and man-
made disasters and ways to minimize damage before those disasters occur is
currentiy being prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County, and
partiapafing county water and wastewater utilities (Hazard Mitigation Working Group)
The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all local governments :to create'
such a disaster `plan in order fo qualify for mitigation funding in the future. MWDOG has
hired a consultant, URS Corp., to assist in the creation of a plan for the water utilities.
This news. release is being provided to inform the public. that the plan is `.
being prepared.' Publicworkshops will be held during the spring of 2006 to solicit input
from the public after the working group identifies natural and man made hazards that
1 • may damage their facilities, and identifies mitigation measures that can be implemented
to minimize damage prior to an event Public input into this process is very important
and residents are encouraged to attend the workshops, make comments and ask
•
questions.
The planning document will focus on potential impacts of disasters such as
earthquakes, fires and floods,. along with human - caused hazards including terrorist
attacks. The plan, once complete must go to the Governing Board for each participating .
utility for adoption.
Contact Kelly Hubbard at MWDOC [(714) 593 -5010] for more information.,
September 12, 9006
SECTIONEIGHT
Appendix C -2, Bill Insert
•
Appelndices
0
September 12, 2006
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
•
L_J
Appendix G3: August 25, 2006
PRESS RFr F4.CE
COUNTY WATER, WASTEWATER AGENCIES SEEK
PUBLIC INPUT IN DISASTER- PREPAREDNESS PLAN
Your City (August 2006) —A draft plan identifying the risks posed by natural and manmade
disasters — and ways to minimize potential damage before it occurs — will be available for public review
and input at two community workshops sponsored by the Orange County water and wastewater agencies
preparing the document.
The _ (your agency) -,along with 19 other agencies compiling the Orange County Regional
Water and Wastewater Muhi- Hazard Mitigation Plan, has spent nearly a year performing risk analyses for
disasters specific to the area and developing numerous strategies and corresponding actions to reduce the
possible effects. These disasters, including earthquakes, fires, floods and manmade hazards, will be
disposed at two public workshops:
NORTH COUNTY: City of Tustin
Tustin Community Center
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p:m.
September. 12, 2006
SOUTH COUNTY: Moulton Niguel Water District
27500 La Paz Rd
Lague Niguel, Ca 92677
5:00 pin — 7:00 p.m.
September 14, 2006
— more —
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
2 -2 -2 -2
September 12, 2006
SECTIONEIGHT appendices
Following public input, the final Regional Water and Wastewater Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan
will be presented for approval to the respective city councils or boards of directors of the participating
water- service provides, and implemented as part of the comprehensive Federal Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000.
The Act requires all governmental agencies have disaster preparedness plans to help ensure the
safety of its citizens in the event of an emergency, and to qualify for future funding should a disaster
occur.
"Public participation in disaster- preparedness planning is extremely important. Residents are
encouraged to attend the workshops, ask questions, and give us their comments. We took forward to a
comprehensive plan that includes the input of those we 'serve," said Kelly Hubbard of the Water
Emergency Response Organization of Orange County, which is headquartered at the Municipal Water
District of Orange County, and is the agency coordinating the planning effort..
A grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency is helping underwrite the cost of
compiling the plan.
Hazard Mitigation Working Grout) Participants Include:
City of Buena Park
Orange County Sanitation District
El Toro Water District
Orange County Water District
City of Garden Grove
Santa Margarita Water District
City of La Habra
Serrano Water District
City of Laguna' Beach
South Coast Water District
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Moulton Niguel Water District
Municipal Water District of Orange County
City of Newport Beach
City of Orange
South Orange County
Wastewater Authority
South Coast Water District
City of Tustin
City of Westminster
# ##
Yorba Linda Water District
September 12, 2006
•
is
• SECTIONEIGHT riuueudices
APPENDIX D: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
e
DETERMINING THE VALUE OF WATER SUPPLY RELIABILIY
IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 2003 FOR
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY
September 12, 2W6
SECTIONEIGHT appendices •
DETERMINING THE VALUE OF WATER SUPPLY RELIABIIdY
IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STUDY OBJECTIVE
This study provides insights into how to value water supply reliability by providing estimates of the
economic impacts of different water shortages that could result in Orange County. Understanding the
value of water supply reliability gives planners a tool to aid in assessing infrastructure projects that can
increase reliability. This study does not assess the likelihood of different disruptions to water supply, but
instead estimates the economic impacts of the resulting water shortages if a particular supply interruption
occurs. The economic impact estimates provided. herein can be combined with assessments of the
likelihood of shortages derived from other studies. Together, that information can give insights into the
benefits of projects that reduce the probability or severity of water shortages, allowing water engineers
and the public to apply benefit -cost tests to projects that improve water supply reliability.
Two types of shortages are examined in this study— short-term emergency disruptions and multiple -year
droughts. A range of scenarios was examined for both situations. Those scenarios were:
Emergency Disruptions: Water supply reductions of 20 %, 40 %, •
60 %andg0% for 10, 20, 30, and 60 days.
Drought: Water supply reductions of 5% and
20% for one, two, and three years.
The estimated economic impacts are separated into business impacts and residential impacts. This allows
planners to choose the impacts that best match particular scenarios or projects being studied. For
example, residential users are often required to reduce their water usage by more than business customers
during water shortages to help preserve the economic base of the area. So a planner might wish to
Combine the impacts of a 60% reduction in water delivery to residential customers with the impact of a
20% reduction in water delivery to businesses. In addition to residential and business impacts, this report
also includes an estimate of the value of landscape losses that would be expected during droughts, and a
discussion of the impact of emergency outages on damages from firestorms due to a lack of water supply
for firefighting.
•
September 12, 2006
L
J
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
BACKGROUND
Orange County is a major metropolitan region whose economy can be substantially slowed by short-term
or long -team water disruptions. If Orange County were a country, its gross product in 2002 would rank
356 in the world — ahead of such nations as Finland, Greece. South Africa, and Thailand. Among metro
areas in the United States, Orange County has the l I' largest gross product, behind Los Angeles (2n and
ahead ofM uneapolis/St. Paul (120) and Seattle (13'q. Orange County's population, at close to three
million persons, makes it the 5th largest county in the United States. Orange County has more residents
than 21 of the country's states, including Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. In a large and economically important
region, infrastructure planning should be based on careful assessments of the impacts of possible
disruptions to service. This report supports th at goal by assessing the economic impact of disruptions.to
water supply.
Orange County obtains its water from three primary locations — a large groundwater basin underneath
northern Orange County which is supplied via the Santa Ana River, imported water from the Colorado
River and California State Water Project, and local water supply facilities (recycled supplies, groundwater.
and surface water supplies). It should be noted that the Santa Ana River water also includes imported
water from the upstream watershed areas that shows up as irrigation runoff into the river, or via
wastewater discharges. Figure l provides a map of the major water facilities in Orange County. Northern
Orange. County. obtains approximately 66-75% of its water from the large subterranean groundwater
basin. Brea and La Habra obtain about 60% from local supplies and about 40% from imported water.
Southern Orange County (south of Irvine) obtains most of its water from imported water, about 86% of
total, and 9.8% of potable. This imported water is delivered through two pipelines and treated at the
Diemer Filtration Plant. The two pipelines are the Allen McCulloch Pipeline and the East Orange County
Feeder No. 2. The Diemer Filtration Plant, located in Yorba Linda, supplies up to 520 million gallons of
water per day (800 cubic feet per second), providing almost 100% of the trued imported supplies to
Orange County. The Diemer Plant, the Allen- McCulloch Pipeline and the East Orange County Feeder
No. 2 pipeline are essential for supplying water, particularly to South Orange County. An outage of any
one of the three facilities has the potential to create supply problems until service is restored. In
particular, an outage of the Diemer Plant would be an extremely difficult evert with which to deal
STUDY.REGIONS
Because of the differing mix of water sources in Orange County, South Orange County is more
vulnerable to emergency disruptions than other areas of the County. In modeling water shortages, this
study divides the county into three regions, based on the availability of local groundwater. Those regions
are shown in Figure 2 and the resources available to each region are discussed below and included in
Table 1:
• Brea/La Habra, which.receives locally produced water from California Domestic Water
Company, limited local wells, and imported water from Metropolitan, This area's water reserves
are held in the Orange County Reservoir and tank storage. About 60% of the water used in this
September 12, 2006
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices •
area on an annual basis is derived locally as opposed to being provided by Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (Met).
Orange County's main groundwater basin, which incorporates all of Orange County north of and
including Irvine (excluding Brea and La Habra), is managed by Orange County Water District.
This region receives the bulk of its water from local wells and imported water from Met
Between 66% and 75% of the water used by this area on an annual. basis is derived locally as
opposed to being purchased from Metropolitan. This areas' reserves are held in storage within the
groundwater basin and limited tank storage.
• South Orange County, which incorporates' the remainder of the County, is located south of- Irvine.
Also included in South Orange County is the area of San Diego County abutting San Clemente..
This region receives its water from imported sources primarily along with limited local supplies.
This areas' reserves are held in tank storage and storage provided by the El Toro R-6 Reservoir
along with several other small reservoirs.
Regions as shown in Figure l were defined based on the cities served by local water agencies. Region
definitions correspond to differing availability of local water sources, and thus differing vulnerability to
water shortages,:patticularly emergency disruptions that reduce the supply of water imported from the
Colorado River or State Water Project
Table. 1: Orange County Supplies to Meet Consumptive Demand
Projected for 2002 -03 by Tbree Regions
Region
Source
Annual Use by
I of
% Total
. Supply
% of
Potable
Storage ,
Volume,:,
Cal Domestic
12,000
55
100
Brea/
LocaL.GW
1,200
6
100
LaHabm
Met
8,471..
39
.100
Recycled
-0-.
0
Totals
OCWD Basin
21,671
1000/0
72
75
252 of
387,010
Basin`
Surface Stream
8,000
1
—
Met
124,943
23
25
Recycled
16,675
3
—
Totals
EMENEMM
Local.GW
536,628
2,714.
100%
2
.2
South OCZ
—ae—t
108,227
86
98
Subtotal Potable
110,941
100
Recycled
14,753
12
Totals
1251694
100%
100%
1,282 of
Projections are agency responses to MWDOCs Spring 7002 "5 -Year Survey." Agency projections assumed that the
6CWD Basin Pumping Percentage (BPP) would be set at 75"/0. If the BPP were lower, OCWD GW pumping would
be lower and Met import higher. For 2003- 04,the BPP has been set at 66% due to basin overdraft and replenishment
September 12, 2006
E
•
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
constraints. In addition to the amount of Met import shown to meet consumptive demand, there is also Met import
purchased to replenish the Groundwa ter Basin. For 2002-03, OCWD planned to purchase 90,700 of of
replenishment supplies. Any purchase of long -term treated (in -lieu) would reduce pumping by an equal amount.
r Basin includes all of Anaheim, Irvine Rench Water District, Santiago County Water District and
Xorba Linda Water District (these areas have portions both within and.outside of the groundwater.
basin.
South OC includes SDCWA's San Onofre area as well as the Las Alisos area of IRWD. .
a Reservoir and tank storage. It is assumed that about 30% of tank storage is available for emergency supply
with the rest dedicated to operational and fire-fighting storage.
Proportional to pumping ca p
arity (current estimate 500 cfs t among all producers)
•
September 12, 9006
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices . •
STUDY METHODOLOGY
This study quantifies the economic impact of short-term supply disruptions due to emergency outages and
multiple -year water shortages caused by droughts. Economic impact estimates are derived primarily from
two sources — estimates of business impacts and estimates of residential impacts. The business impacts
are reductions in output or employment that would be caused by water shortages. The residential impacts
are values that residents place on the "inconveniences" caused by water shortages. Those
"inconveniences" can be large, and can include quantifiable economic losses such as damage to
landscape. Yet the value that households place on water supply reliability likely goes well beyond simple
measures of; for example, replacement costs for damaged landscapes.
Results from other studies in California were adapted to Orange County to provide estimates of economic
impacts. Business impacts were based on a survey of firms in San Diego conducted in 1994. Those forms
were asked to quantify how water shortages of varying magnitudes would affect their economic output.
Residential impacts. are based on a survey of households conducted for the California Urban Water
Agencies in 1993. In that survey, residents were asked how much they would be willing to pay to avoid
water shortages of varying magnitudes. This approach is utilized in this study since more specific
economic and non - economic impacts' data is unavailable.
A complete estimate of the economic impact of water.shortages requires adding together business and
residential impacts. The data source used for business impacts focused only on reductions in business
activity, and the data source used to estimate residential impacts focused on reductions to household water
supply and so likely did not capture impacts on business activity.
In addition to business and residential impacts, for drought scenarios a separate estimate of damage to
landscapes is provided. Landscape impacts were often approximately one to two percent of total impacts
and were typically not more than ten percent of total impacts, and so landscape losses are not discussed
further in this executive summary. Other impacts, such as losses due to fires based on a inability or
reduced ability to fight fires in cases of water shortages in emergencies such as major earthquakes, were
not quantified. Incremental fire damage due to interruptions in water supply can be large sources of
economic loss, but quantifying those losses requires detailed understanding of the water distribution
system, backup supplies of water that can be used for firefighting, and &ctors such as topography,
Prevailing winds, and settlement patterns that would contribute to likely locations and extent of fires in
the case of a major natural disaster. All of those posed data requirements that were beyond the scope of
this study.
in the long run, an unreliable water supply could deter business from locating in Orange County or could .
be an impetus for Orange County firms to locate elsewhere. This study does not attempt to quantify the
impact of water shortages on business location decisions and hence the analysis provided herein could
underestimate the full economic impact of water shortages.
September 12, 2006
•
•
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
•
BUSINESS IMPACTS
Business Impacts are based on a survey of firms conducted by CIC Research for San Diego County Water
Authority (CIC Research, 1993, 1994, and 1999). The San Diego survey asked firms how much they
would reduce their output given three different levels of water shortage — 20%, 40%, and 60% reductions
— for two time periods, 2 months and 6. months. The original study was conducted in 1993, and 690 funs
responded, for a 24% response rate. That response rate is within the range of what is expected for surveys
Of firms.
The results are reported for eleven different industry groups. For each industry group, the survey allows
one to infer how firms in that group will reduce output in response to water reductions of the specified
magnitude and duration. The data was used to form inputs into the I1v1PLAN input - output model for
Orange County. The IhWLAN model takes direct economic inputs and calculates indirect and induced
effects. For example, if a manufacturing firm reduces its output; it will buy less from suppliers (imdirect
effects), and might lay off employees, who then have less income to buy products from other Orange
County companies (induced effects). The San Diego survey results were adapted to the economic
structure of each of the three Orange County regions by apportioning impacts based on the amount of
economic activity in each region.. The Basin contains the largest share of the County's economic activity,
and so would.bear the largest share of business losses if water shortages were to occur in that area.. In
actuality, because of the benefits of storage provided by the groundwater basin, the basin area is less
likely to incur: emergency or drought impacts than other portions of Orange County.
RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS
The residential impacts are based on a contingent valuation study of water customers conducted by
Barakat and Chamberlin (1994) for California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA). Contingent valuation is
an advanced survey technique used to elicit how persons value products that are not available in a private
market: In this case, the contingent. value survey examined how persons would value projects that reduce
the likelihood of future water shortages. While water is available in some markets (i.e. the market for
bottled water), there is no market for improvements in the reliability of public water supply.
In the CUWA study, the survey respondents were first given information about the types of lifestyle
adjustments that water reductions ranging from 10% to 501/6 would require of them. Then those persons
were asked to vote fora dollar value payment that would guarantee that a specified type of shortage
would not occur, and respondents were asked to vote "yes" or "no" on the additional.paymerrt as if their
bill would increase by the amount specified if a majority of uses voted "yes ". A range of possible
payments and water shortages was offered, to give detailed information about average willingness to pay
to avoid water shortages of varying magnitudes.
The CUWA survey was conducted in the.service area of member water agencies. For this study, we used
the results, from Orange County where 1,800 households were surveyed, of which 623 completed the
survey. Willingness - to-pay values from the CUWA study mere expressed as monthly payments. Those
payments were converted into a present value by discounting at 5% over a 50 -year planning horizon, to
September I Z 2006
SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
obtain equivalent one -time payments, which were then multiplied by the number of households in each
study region to get the residential impacts from water shortages in each region
STUDY FINDINGS
The study has produced dollar estimates of economic impacts of given water shortages to both the
business and residential sectors of three regions within Orange County. The water shortage
scenarios analyzed included both short -term emergency disruptions (10 to 60 days in duration)
and multiple -year drought situations (1 to 3 years). The three regions of the County analyzed
were defined based on the availability of local supplies and the potential risk of supply reliability
impacts. The detailed summaries of the various impacts analyzed are included in Tables 2, 3, 4
and 5.
2. The data used to develop the dollar estimates for the economic impacts of water shortages was
adapted for the Orange County analyses from previous studies conducted by others. Overall, the
best available data and studies were used and when assumptions had to be made, they were done
In a conservative manner. .
3. The results revealed that business impacts are larger than residential impacts. For short -term,
emergency disruptions, the difference between business impacts and residential impacts varies
depending on the magnitude and length of a shortage. For an 80% water loss in South Orange'
County for 60 days, business impacts are approximately five times as large as residential impacts.
For a 20% water loss in, the Basin, business impacts are approximately ten times as large as
resident impacts. At low levels of water disruption, resident impacts more closely approximate
business impacts. For example, the residential impacts from a 201/6 water loss for 10 days in
South Orange County are about 75% of the business impacts from the same disruption
4. For total O.C. during an emergency outage that causes a 20% water supply shortfall and lasts
from 10 to 60 days, the economic impacts range from $0.4 to $3 billion
5. For total O.C. during a drought that results in a 5% shortage to the Basin area and 20% shortage
outside the basin area for a 1 to 3 year period, the economic impacts range from $15 to $43
billion
6. If shortages were to occur:
i South Orange County would experience approximately 12 % of the business and employment
impacts, but 25% of the residential and landscape lases. South Orange County has a higher
dependence on imported water supplies and hence is more vulnerable to supply outages.
• The Orange County Basin would experience 84% of the business impacts and 71 % of the .
residential and landscape losses, but has a significant supply of water available from the
groundwater basin and hence is somewhat insulated from imported water supply emergency
disruptions.
• Brea/La Habra area would experience about 3% of all impacts.
7. Drought scenarios generally cause a higher level of impact than do emergency outages and
exceed all but the worst -case emergency disruptions. The exception is a 60-day 60% reduction in
water supplies to the Basin business sector, which would exceed the impact of a year-long 5%
drought in the Basin (20% reduction in imported supply assuming a 75% BPP)
8. In most scenarios, about % of the business losses are in the manufacturing and service sectors.
Employment losses are highest in services and retail throughout the County.
September 12, 2006
•
•
E
0
• SECTIONEIGHT Appendices
U1
•
Application of Study Findings
The data developed in this evaluation need to be applied carefully in evaluating the potential economic
impacts of shortages and in evaluating the benefits of projects to improve the supply reliability to any of
the three regions in Orange County. The next step in the process, which was beyond the scope of this
study, is to develop a portfolio of projects that can help to mitigate or offset potential emergency and
drought related shortages. Evaluation of potential projects is being completed as part of the study efforts
by Municipal Water District of Orange County in its South Orange County Water Reliability Study and
the Orange County Water Reliability Program (also involves work by Orange County Water District).
Selected Tables of Results
Table 3:
Table 2: Emergency Shortages, Business Impacts
17
(2002 dollars in millions)
Water Reduction
60 days
30 days
20 days
10 days
20%
$179
Duration
$60
$30
40%
$228
$114
Water Reduction
60 days
30 days
20 days
10 days
20%
$46
$268
$119
$76
$37
40%
$695
5326
$213
$104
60 %
duration
$1,117
$525
$344
$169
80%
30 days
$1,543
$732
$482
$238
20%
$1,955
1 $873
$561
$271
20%
$80
$36
$23
$11
40%
$211
$98
$64
$31
60%
$346
$162
$106
$52
Table 3:
Emergency Shortages, Residential Impacts
17
(2002 dollars in millions)
Water Reduction
60 days
30 days
20 days
10 days
20%
$179
$89
$60
$30
40%
$228
$114
S76
$38
60%
$273
$137
S91
$46
80%
$331
$165
$110
$55
duration
Water Reduction
60 days
30 days
20 days
10 days
September 12, 2006
0
SECTIONEIGHT
0
Appendices •
20%
$501 $250
$167
$83
Water Reduction
60 days 30 days
20 days
10 days
20%
$24
$12
$8
$4
40%
$31
$15
$10
$5
•
September 12, 2006
0
IE
SECTIONEIGHT
Appendices
Table 4: Drought, Business Impacts
(2002 dollars in millions)
Duration
Water Reduction
1 year
2 years
3 years
5%
$958
$1,917
3 years
$2,817
20%
$2,817
$5,634
$2,886
$8,452
$2,176
$3,263
Duration
Water Reduction
I year
2 years
Water Reduction
1 year
2 years
55391
3 years
5%
$6,728
$13,455
$20,183
I Water Reduction I I vear 1 2 vears 1 3 vears I
5% $272 1 $545 $818
20% 1 $837 1 $1,674 $2,511
Table 5: Drought, Residential Impacts
(2002 dollars in millions)
Water Reduction
2 years
3 years
5%
;Duratio;ni
51,924
$2,886
20%
$2,176
$3,263
Water Reduction
I year
2 years
3 years
5%
S2.695
55391
58.086
FO y��
5% 5130 5259 $389
20% S147 $293 $440
September 12, 2006
• SECTIONEIGHT
I
•
0 0
Orange County Water Distribution System
J
4 � +
I
I +
I
r u.
F Igurr. 1
Appendices
September 12, 2006
0
SECTIONEIGHT
0
Appendices
Three Study Regions in Orange County
Based on Mix of Local and Imported Water Sources
�:
1'„:
,
-A.AR..3.,
yl11ARR111•
,A.,5.4
.RR
Y ..1.
TMt.N
W Y3
tlMfl•1M1 I{C
•It1.
Basin
w,Vlgr
.lY.
tlrli.
aM.Vlat leM�
caw•. r.u. w•. r.¢I
South Orange Count'
Figure 2
r =-
5Y •YJ
t.u5,...0
r.StN MSIY(.
September 12, 2006
P
•
E
:-cobra
,.,,<
1,.
Jir�4
RUA
n.,,l fntra:•
�:
1'„:
,
-A.AR..3.,
yl11ARR111•
,A.,5.4
.RR
Y ..1.
TMt.N
W Y3
tlMfl•1M1 I{C
•It1.
Basin
w,Vlgr
.lY.
tlrli.
aM.Vlat leM�
caw•. r.u. w•. r.¢I
South Orange Count'
Figure 2
r =-
5Y •YJ
t.u5,...0
r.StN MSIY(.
September 12, 2006
P
•
E
C
SECTIONEIGHT
APPENDIX E: MWDOC HAZARD MITIGATION DATA MATRIX
Appendices
Acqui
red
September 12, 2006
from 10
UTM Zone
meter
Various 11 NAD
DEMs
USGS
G \gls\projects \1577127655113 \support\Slope
y
dates 27 Meters
satannauaAt '�
z a5
i{YT -ti' 1.LC. SJT
aFfT. Y / E<
State
Plane
Zone 6
G:1gis\ projects\ 15 7 712 7 6 5 511 3 \supportlCSU_FullertonlEARTHQ
NAD 83,
Faults
CDR -CSUF
UAKE_DATA
y
,2005 Feet
Probabilistic
Peak
GCS
Horizontal
Clarke
Acceleration
USGS
G \gis\prolects \15 7 712 76 5 511 3 \support\USGS
y National level model
2002 1866
Floua
tkt<e
��
;rsr ' k r. `x�'�� e? �.,' `
r.'�wu'
:'M �11 -�
.��?����,,�C'
Does not take into
Flood - 100-
HAZUS from
account levee upgrades
GCS NAD
yr
FEMA -FIRM
G:\gis\ projects\ 1577\276551131support\HazardData \HAZUS
y to the Santa Ana River
1996 27
Does not lake into
Flood -500-
HAZUS from
account levee upgrades
GCS NAD
yr
'FEMA -FIRM
G: \gist projects\ 1577 \276551131supportlHazardData \HAZUS
y to the Santa Ana River
1996 27
HAZUS from
GCS NAD.
Dams
FEMA FIRM
G lgis\ projects\ 1 5 7 712 76 5511 31support\ \,H_azardData\HAZUS
y
2002 83
F feb 6n
_
31. "��sar,R*� � MEWS \�, PP
Ltau�
r zalkr.
3Pta ?'o, €
OO
State
Plane
Zone 6
G:\ gis\ projects11577\ 276551134support\CSU_Fullerton\EARTHQ
NAD 83,
Faults
CDR -CSUF
UAKE_DATA
y
2005 Feet
State
Plane
Unknown Zone 6
Orange
No metadata provided by
Date of NAD 83,
Liquefaction
County
G: 1gislprojecis \1577\276551131support \County
y Orange County
Publication Feet
September 12, 2006
SECTIONEIGHT
Appendices
Fire Threat
Model CDF -FRAP G:1gis\projectsti1577 \29655113 \support\FRAP
Teale
y 100 meter cell data 2004 Albers
September 12, 2006
Tsunami
Unknown
Inundation
Orange
G:1gis\projectsl1577\ 27655113 1supponlMWDOC_ Tsunami Date of
Maps
County
_PDF
S
y POFs only, no GIS Data Publication
NA
Tsunami
NOAA-
World
Events
NGDC
G:lgisiprojects 11577 @76551131supportlNOAA
Point locations for events 2006
Plate
Carree
Tsunami
NOAA-
World
Plate
Runup
NGDC
G:\ gisNprojects\157M76551131support\NOAA
Point locations for runup 2006
Carree
Tsunami
California
Maximum
Only up to 10 meter
Teale
Fire Threat
Model CDF -FRAP G:1gis\projectsti1577 \29655113 \support\FRAP
Teale
y 100 meter cell data 2004 Albers
September 12, 2006
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 97
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
AND WASTEWATER MULTI - HAZARD
MITIGATION (HAZMIT) PLAN
WHEREAS, beginning in 2004 the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) started restricting grant applications for pre- and post - disaster hazard mitigation
funds.for agencies not covered by an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach (City) in conjunction with 19 other
agencies in Orange County together created a joint Hazard .Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan must be adopted by each .participating agency following a
public workshop and filed with the State Office of Emergency Services and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for approval; and
WHEREAS, the City has therefore, prepared and circulated for public review a
draft HAZMIT Plan, and a properly noticed public meetings regarding said Plan held on
September 12 & 14, 2006, and;
WHEREAS, adoption of this HAZMIT Plan qualifies the City to submit for Hazard
Mitigation Implementation Grants and funds available for the purpose of mitigating
damage to public water and wastewater facilities; and
WHEREAS, the HAZMIT Plan shall be periodically reviewed at least once every
five years, and that the City shall make any amendments or changes to its HAZMIT
Plan which are indicated by the review; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach that the Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard
Mitigation Plan is hereby adopted and order filed with the City. Clerk. A copy of the
Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard Mitigation (HAZMIT) Plan
shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Municipal Water District of
Orange County, on behalf of the City of Newport Beach is hereby authorized and
directed to forward the Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi- Hazard
Mitigation Plan as is to the State Office of Emergency Services and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2006.
ATTEST-
City Clerk
Mayor
0 •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA j
COUNTY OF ORANGE j as.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH j
I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing
resolution, being Resolution No. 2006 -97 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by
the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly, held on the
14th day of November 2006, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to
wit:
Ayes: Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb .
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 15th day of November 2006. .
(Seal)
d7:.
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California